Interesting Threefold Model Essay

[contracycle]

Oh yes, I should also say that much of the conversation I was exploring was based on the question "how do I get you the player to tell me what you want from the game".  And the answer was "You can't, as soon as you ask me that question I lose my character".  Thius implies that not only would be Director stance be unavailable and unsuitable to such players, it would itself be the worst thing that could happen to them; it would destroy the experience for them.

[ This Message was edited by: contracycle on 2001-09-26 06:36 ]

[Le Joueur]

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote:

What do I mean when I say immersive? While I do skew towards "[identifying] emotionally with the [player character]," I mean playing primarily from a first-person, individual point of view, not necessarily equating one's emotions with those of the character, but deriving gratification from play that restricts player access to the game mostly to the primary contact point; the actions [and experiences] of one character.

That is what I would expect from the term too, but I don't think it is what [self-defined] Immersives themselves are trying to describe.  I think a much greater portion of the players consciousness is invested in the character, there is a much greater submission of the "host" personality.
[ Please forgive the insertions in both Contracycle's and my quotes, I think they add important clarification.  Snip of the interesting Aristoi example.]

In most discussions on Immersive play in which I have participated, there has been mention of players who are not routinely immersive but who have experienced immersion from time to time.
[Snip the personal experience.]

Part of the point is that this was substantially different from my normal In Character stance.  I routinely employ Actor, flipping in to others; during what I think was an immersive experience I would not have been able to do this.
[Snip more personal experiences.]

Anyway, as I say I think the phenomenon described by Immersion is substantially different from simply assuming a first person viewpoint;

I find this a little confusing when you start off essentially agreeing with me, "That is what I would expect from the term too."

it is the extinguishing of the distinction between player and character on a temporary basis.  As such it is a very, umm, profound behaviour, and I don't think it can be boxed with the more conventional player stances.

I have to say that what you describe is quite probably the most extreme of immersion (I cannot think of any moreso); perhaps it is what is called 'deep immersion' by most authors.  That is why it cannot be "boxed with the more conventional player stances," it is the extreme and perhaps, as you champion, the degenerative form (re: the whole discussion of it being a "psychological disorder").

I recognize your experiences with self-defined Immersive players and respect their opinions of what they feel immersion is, but I have to say if we cut the definition of immersive role-playing gaming down to only this extreme we are divorcing a lot of people who enjoy (I don't know what to call it at this point) 'immersion light.'

What I described above, I felt, was a description for immersive play that clearly (provided my use of "gratification" is right in terms of emotion) differentiates it from things like 'token play' (treating one's character as merely a collective tool for interacting with sequence of in-game events), 'demonstrative play' (avoiding Ron's proprietary use of the word actor, these are people who play to entertain the other players), 'ironic play' (using player knowledge to heighten 'interest' in certain qualities of the game), 'co-gamemaster play' (where the player shares the chores of the gamemaster insofar as they relate to their own character), and others.  If by immersive play we limit the description to the (arguably) degenerate form you suggest, how do we describe players who play in 'tourist mode' (experiencing the setting and all its grandeur from a first person perspective), yet with some small amount of emotional engagement stemming from the character's relationship to the setting (that which a 'tourist' would lack)?

Now I am not one to be all-inclusive, and I realize you have a lot of bad history with the use of the word immersive (in your locale), but I should think we could compromise on the above-most description for the time being and avoid the "all immersive players have psychological disorders" argument for the time being.  Can we just stick to what most people "would expect from the term" anyway?

Fang Langford

[Mike Holmes]

I believe that Contracycle's description of "Immersives" probably refers to the Turku (sp?) or e-thing guys and people of similar bent.

I think that desire for Immersion is a spectrum from heavily and more emotionally immersed to lightly and less emotionally. The E-thing guys and people like that are merely at one end of that spectrum. On the other end are those who couldn't care less.

So, I agree with Fang's definition in that the one thing in common is relating to the character in "first-person". In fact I agree almost completely with Fang, here. Again this falls into the player desire category. As Ron says GNS covers the decision making process essentially. So Simulationism (deciding things on verisimilitude) is the GNS mode that will most facilitate the fulfilment of this desire, and hence the linkage. Not to say that the other modes can't provide any fulfilment, just that it will be less easy, less common, and less effective to try and provide for this desire using these modes.

For example, in a Narrativist game (one with other players playing in a Narrativist fashion and using rules that empower them to do so) a player might only use narrativist director power to create things that are not at all related to their character if the player feels that use of this power in a fashion that relates to their character will destroy thier Immersion in the game. This player will probably get some satisfaction, but less than if they were playing a Simulationist game. Similarly, a Gamist can always play with the stats available, and try to power up their character in just about any type of game in order to satisfy their desire for such progress. Gamist games will cater best to this, however.

I think that syncretizes everyone's opinions here, no? What desire needs satisfying? What decision making process (GNS) will fulfil that need best? Immersion is best satisfied by Simulationism.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth (contracycle),

I think your insights regarding the sensations of immersion are valuable. I completely agree with you regarding its incompatibility with Director stance, and in my experience much Author-stance play is severely discouraged by fellow players in this mode.

However, your reference of Actor stance as "in-character" or "first-person" play is skewed slightly, and so your conclusion about immersion and stance doesn't hold.

Actor stance is not synonymous with in-character or first-person play. *It means that the player makes all character decisions and determines all character behavior employing ONLY character knowledge and priorities.*

In-character can mean a lot of things, but I'll take it to mean "speaking with the character's voice," including gestures and so forth. This, frustratingly, is what corresponds to "acting" in the colloquial sense, but it is itself not Actor stance.

First-person means using "I" when describing a PC's actions, rather than "he" or "Sebastian." As I've said many times, first or third person diction is totally irrelevant to stance.

For those who are aggravated by my seeming reliance on private definitions, I sympathize - but attending to each and every nuance of RPG theory as a dissertation cannot be my priority in life. Believe it or not, a lot of the definitions ARE available in the right threads, and if you ask, someone will dig it up. As long as we continue to discuss these things in a civilized way, we'll get there.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Whoa - amazing thread. Reading my, Mike's, Fang's, and Gareth's posts, I'm pretty sure we're hitting on all cylinders. I'm with it so far.

The only minor bug is the "Actor stance" part, both in (1) the terminology itself, as Fang has stated; and in (2) its relationship to (a) Simulationism and (b) immersion. For #2, I'm pretty content with the way I've constructed it above ... any more discussion, so I can be sure?

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ron,

(Didn't I say it might be apocryphal?)  You are right that the GNS is neither gamemaster focused nor goals focused (at least you can say that now).  Originally, way back in the days I still visited rpga, the GDS model was frequently argued about.  Over time, the substance of each argument resorted to the idea that the rpga GDS model was about decisions (as well described back in More FAQ comments (long and bloody)) and then that it was only in how the gamemaster decided how to do things (you'll have to do this rpga research for yourself).

I did find the point where you substantiate the idea that the GNS model is used to classify role-playing game players (in All-out dissection (LONG AND BRUTAL)), but even there you point out that it is about "role-playing DECISIONS and PRIORITIES."  I haven't really seen much where you expand on this (and feel free to correct me), so I'll work from there.

Now, it is clear that the GNS is somewhat the product of the GDS (there are obvious similarities).  So anything I projected on GNS about gamemaster-centricism is only partially historical (and that's weak at best).  I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

As you said here, "it's about DECISIONS and GOALS," but I think a case can be made that anything which would be specifically and only ascribed to a player goal is always demoted to stance.  Subsequently, I think that the whole set of stances seems entirely restricted to player style and then the relationship between stances and the 'folds' makes it clear that players are thus a lesser form of participant.

Simply put, a gamemaster does not practice immersion themselves, do they?  That is a player practice, thus a stance (or more accurately, according to what I have read, a mode that is a sub-stance of 'Actor Stance').

Likewise, isn't it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)?  While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn't Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster?  Thus it would be a gamemaster practice and it also happens to be a full-fledged classification in the GNS.

In several places, people talk about using all stances with all classifications, but ultimately things that player does appear to be stances and things that a gamemaster does (or a system does) appear as categories in the GNS model.  Doesn't it always seem as though the stances are subordinate to the categories?  Given that, then the GNS does show a bias if not towards gamemastering at least away from (what should I call it?) playering.

Fang Langford

p. s. I realize that the "GM as opposed to players" thing might seem a bit confusing, but you have been working so deeply on the frontiers of Narrativism and 'power sharing' with players for so long, you might remember that out here in the hinterlands there are still clear differences between the two.

[Mike Holmes]

Ron,

I think that by "First-Person" we are not referring to diction so much as the computer game concept. That is in a first-person shooter, you see things from (and presumably then make decisions based on) the character's viewpoint. This is, BTW, almost exactly equal with your definition above of Actor mode. Defined thus, yes, actor mode and Immersion have a one-to-one relationship in their most basic meanings.

If I may, I see Immersion as an input to the player and Actor as an output. That is that Immersion is something the player recieves, while Actor mode is what he does. And yes, Actor mode is the best mode for players to be in to get Immersive feedback from the game. If the player does nothing to damage SOD then the player's SOD is heightened and the player is more Immersed.

I think again that the urge that I have to split this up into player input and output is what causes people like me and fang to talk about Immersion. We want to know not only what the player is doing, but why. By this model we'd say that the another motivation or input that a player can recieve is the satisfaction of an interesting portrayal of the character. This is the demonstrative thing that Fang refers to. The problem with the Stance terminology as it stands is that the demonstrative type may be just as satisfied being in other modes than just actor and may switch freely. Yet the term Actor does so imply the demonstrative activity to the uninformed.

Just to get the idea across, here is a model that might satisfy our objectives I think.

Motivations - Stance - Behavior Associated
-------------------
Entertainment, Socializing - Audience - Listening, absorbing, recording, slight participation

Play, Strategy - Pawn - describes character actions in a fashion designed to promote the pawn

Immersion, Safety - First Person - describes character actions designed to suspend disbelief

Demonstration, Approval - Actor - speaks IC, physically acts out character actions

Background Creation, Character Development - Author - describes previously unrevealed and new facets of character

Protagonism, World Creation - Director - describes results of character activities or anything else.

I may have missed a few stances, and there are certainly more motivations.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 11:46 ]

[Mike Holmes]

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 11:45 ]

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote to me:

Your take on immersion - seems to fit the XYZ thing referred to by me as Actor stance.

Of that I am not surprised.  This 'take' arose after working out how to discuss that particular stance without so strongly implying what I called 'demonstrative play' earlier today in this discussion.

Fang Langford

p. s. The only thing I was asking for was more clarification whenever you use the term 'Actor Stance' for the sake of the young'uns.

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-09-26 11:38, Le Joueur wrote:
I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

I agree with Ron here. It's about decisions, no matter who makes them. Why did you have your character/game do that? Answer that question and you find your GNS prediliction in that circumstance. To the extent that a player tends to go one way or another I personally find it useful to lable them.

As you said here, "it's about DECISIONS and GOALS," but I think a case can be made that anything which would be specifically and only ascribed to a player goal is always demoted to stance.  Subsequently, I think that the whole set of stances seems entirely restricted to player style and then the relationship between stances and the 'folds' makes it clear that players are thus a lesser form of participant.

I'd argue that a GM can play an NPC in a stance. I'm writing a GMless game. It seems obvious to me that all people playing are under the same constraints and pressures.

Simply put, a gamemaster does not practice immersion themselves, do they?  That is a player practice, thus a stance (or more accurately, according to what I have read, a mode that is a sub-stance of 'Actor Stance').

To the extent that I play the NPCs, I do when I GM. Also I get into Immersion of setting. Call it a God complex if you like.

Likewise, isn't it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)?  While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn't Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster?  Thus it would be a gamemaster practice and it also happens to be a full-fledged classification in the GNS.

Nope, Simulationism is the decision to make in game decisions based on Verisimilitude (rather than challenge or plot). This is practiced by players and GMs alike.

In several places, people talk about using all stances with all classifications, but ultimately things that player does appear to be stances and things that a gamemaster does (or a system does) appear as categories in the GNS model.  Doesn't it always seem as though the stances are subordinate to the categories?  Given that, then the GNS does show a bias if not towards gamemastering at least away from (what should I call it?) playering.

Motivations and behaviors. See my earlier post.

p. s. I realize that the "GM as opposed to players" thing might seem a bit confusing, but you have been working so deeply on the frontiers of Narrativism and 'power sharing' with players for so long, you might remember that out here in the hinterlands there are still clear differences between the two.

Of course there are differences. That doesn't change either model, however, IMHO.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

I think a good case can still be made that GNS still leans towards the gamemaster point of view, but it is a very complicated implication.

I agree with Ron here. It's about decisions, no matter who makes them. Why did you have your character/game do that? Answer that question and you find your GNS predilection in that circumstance. To the extent that a player tends to go one way or another I personally find it useful to label them.

Except when the decision is 'because I (my character) feel it is the right thing to do.'  That kind of decision, if based on the mode of immersion, does not seem to fit well under the generalized intentions of Simulationism.  You can make it fit, but that seems to be either a perversion of immersion or of Simulationism.

If I wanted to extend what I was trying to point out earlier, gamemasters practice Skills Testing-World-Story Orientation and players practice Skill Practice-Immersive-Characterization Orientation.  Saying that World Orientation and Immersive Orientation fit together neatly under a name like Simulationism doesn't sound right.  (But then who am I to talk, I am clearly against SWTs and TLAs¹ in general.)

As [Ron] said here, "it's about DECISIONS and GOALS," but I think a case can be made that anything which would be specifically and only ascribed to a player goal is always demoted to stance.  Subsequently, I think that the whole set of stances seems entirely restricted to player style and then the relationship between stances and the 'folds' makes it clear that players are thus a lesser form of participant.

I'd argue that a [gamemaster] can play [a non-player character] in a stance. I'm writing a [gamemasterless] game. It seems obvious to me that all people playing are under the same constraints and pressures.

I can understand that a gamemaster can play in a stance, but what I am trying to point out that it doesn't seem like a player cannot.  If there is no more connection between stances and whether to be player or gamemaster, then just as a gamemaster can play 'stanceless' so too should a player; is that any more than just possible?

And by the way, is yours a Simulationist game?  One game, while a good example of one way of doing something, does neither a trend nor generalization make (or break).

The idea I am trying to get at here (and I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game.  Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.  Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist or immersive?

I guess in one way I could be saying that Simulationism is not really in what a player does, whereas immersion is not really something that anyone (or thing) does other than the player.

Simply put, a gamemaster does not practice immersion themselves, do they?  That is a player practice, thus a stance (or more accurately, according to what I have read, a mode that is a sub-stance of 'Actor Stance').

To the extent that I play the NPCs, I do when I GM. Also I get into Immersion of setting. Call it a God complex if you like.

Do you consider this common enough to be representative or just rather exceptional?  How do you deal with the emotional attachment to a non-player character when something happens to them?  Are there many similarities to how (light?) immersive players do so?  Are you sure this is not an exception, because I have never encountered the like.

Remember, I am talking about a 'leaning' here.  A trend, a weighting, a perspective, whatever you want to call it.  I am not giving some kind of intolerant "the GNS is only about gamemastering and nothing else" statement.  I am saying that the original source material has been used to categorize exclusively gamemastering decisions and that I felt there was still some of the sound of it in "this year's model."

Likewise, isn't it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)?  While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn't Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster?  Thus it would be a gamemaster practice and it also happens to be a full-fledged classification in the GNS.

Nope, Simulationism is the decision to make in game decisions based on Verisimilitude (rather than challenge or plot). This is practiced by players and GMs alike.

Doesn't making decisions on the player level in favor of verisimilitude sound at odds with immersive play?  Supporting verisimilitude would be an external perspective to the game, right?  Likewise, (with the notable exception of 'deep non-player characters') is there a common practice of gamemasters that fits what I previously described as immersion?

Sure, Simulationism and immersion can be stretched to contain each other's properties, but could the modeling of the practice of gaming not benefit from splitting them out separately?  As in the above example, there could be three approaches to gamemastering and three different approaches to playing.

In several places, people talk about using all stances with all classifications, but ultimately things that player does appear to be stances and things that a gamemaster does (or a system does) appear as categories in the GNS model.  Doesn't it always seem as though the stances are subordinate to the categories?  Given that, then the GNS does show a bias if not towards gamemastering at least away from (what should I call it?) playering.

Motivations and behaviors. See my earlier post.

It didn't really go that far into whether player behaviors are more often relegated to stance and if gamemaster motivations were mostly described by the GNS.  What I am highlighting is the tendancy in this direction.  I can't see it as an all or nothing debate.

I realize that the "GM as opposed to players" thing might seem a bit confusing, but you have been working so deeply on the frontiers of Narrativism and 'power sharing' with players for so long, you might remember that out here in the hinterlands there are still clear differences between the two.

Of course there are differences. That doesn't change either model, however, IMHO.

I am not saying does.  I am asking, for the interests of clarity, if it might be better to elevate the 'modes' of play to equal status as the arms of the GNS rather than trying to subdivide parts into smaller parts.

I mean, if there is a bias towards immersion being a mode mostly ascribed to Simulationism, yet apparently almost exclusively a player issue, why should it be subordinate to the title Simulationism?  Why not make them twins?  (Especially considering that Simulationism - described by you as working towards the goal of verismilitude - would be at odds with immersion.)  After all, facilitating immersion could be a choice outside of Simulationism.

Fang Langford

¹ Single Word Title and Three Letter Acronym, respectively.

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-26 17:26 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Except when the decision is 'because I (my character) feel it is the right thing to do."  That kind of decision, if based on the mode of immersion, does not seem to fit well under the generalized intentions of Simulationism.  You can make it fit, but that seems to be either a perversion of immersion or of Simulationism.

This I don't get, and seems to be a large part of the problem in communication here. If I make a decision because I think that this is what my character would do, I am simulating the character. This is exactly Simulationism.

You say again later that acting with verisimilitude is not to be Immersive. How not so? If I want to Immerse myself in the character, I make decisions based on what I think the character *would* do given the circumstances. To do else would destroy the suspension of disbelief that Immerses one in the character and situation. To have the character do the tactically sound thing despite it not being what the character would do would be the Gamist decision. To decide on what the character does due to story considerations would be the Narrativist decision. Note that these could all be the same action in a given circumstance. But the reason why you made the decision can make the direction that you choose for the character different in other circumstances. This is GNS as I understand it.

If I wanted to extend what I was trying to point out earlier, gamemasters practice Skills Testing-World-Story Orientation and players practice Skill Using-Immersive-Characterization Orientation.  Saying that World Orientation and Immersive Orientation fit together neatly under a name like Simulationism doesn't sound right.  (But then who am I to talk, I am clearly against SWTs and TLAs¹ in general.)

Sorry. Totally lost me there.

I can understand that a gamemaster can play in a stance, but what I am trying to point out that it doesn't seem like a player cannot.  If there is no more connection between stances and whether to be player or gamemaster, then just as a gamemaster can play 'stanceless' so too should a player; is that more than just possible?

A gamemaster is always in Director stance when not playing a character. The GM is always in a stance as well. Almost the definition of director stance is doing stuff most often reserved for the gamemaster.

And by the way, is yours a Simulationist game?  One game, while a good example of one way of doing something, does neither a trend nor generalization make (or break).

Sorry to use a personal example. But many games these days are sans Gamemaster. In those games, certainly, everyone has the same status. They just all assume director stance much more often.

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game.  Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist or immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three. But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.

I'm not sure where you are going, but I only brought up the Gamemaster-less games to demonstrate that there are games in which you cannot differentiate between players and GMs.

I guess in one way I could be saying that Simulationism is not really in what a player does, were as immersion is not really something that anyone (or thing) does other than the player.

Simulationism is making decisions based on the idea that the choice selected will have verisimilitude. So, when a player makes such a decision, he is Simulating, or being Simulationist. It is not the same as Immersion, no, Immersion is a thing which is most easily obtained when employing, of all available modes, the Simulationist one.

Do you consider this common enough to be representative or rather exceptional?  

Who knows, I can only speak for myself. But I usually spend my time in Director stance if that helps. The Immersion part occurs mostly as I play NPCs, just as it does for players when they play their characters (as opposed to when they might be in Director mode and having little or nothing to do with their characters).

How do you deal with the emotional attachment to a non-player character when something happens to them?  Are there many similarities to how (light?) immersive players do?  Are you sure this is not the exception, because I have never encountered the like.

I'd say that if one doesn't empathize with one's characters at all that one is missing something. That said, my Immersion is very light on the average, and I don't break down and cry when I lose characters be they NPCs or PCs. I will hazard a guess that many people feel this way. Indicative of this was the movement to change NPC to GMC or Gamemaster Character. These characters can be just as fun; why not?

Remember, I am talking about a 'leaning' here.  A trend, a weighting, a perspective, whatever you want to call it.  I am not giving some kind of intolerant "the GNS is only about gamemastering and nothing else" statement.  I am saying that the original source material has been used to categorize exclusively gamemastering decisions and that I felt there was still some of the sound of it in "this year's model."

Well personally I've always been of the feeling that GNS applied to a whole lot more. At least in extrapolation. As Ron would say that by Gamist we mean a player who makes Gamist decisions more often than not. This is to me actually the most important factor of GNS, that if you can identify a proclivity in a player you can cater to it more effectively. My players for the most part do not like Narrativism (and aren't comfortable making Narrativist decisions as it tends to crush the light Immersion that they are after), so I don't run Narrativist games for them.

Likewise, isn't it stretching (as in a rare occurrence, perhaps simply an exception) to say that a player engages in simulation (as described in Simulationism)?  While Simulationism may be what a player likes to experience from either their gamemaster or from the game itself, isn't Simulationism mostly a decision or goal of the gamemaster?

Doesn't making decisions on the player level in favor of verisimilitude sound at odds with immersive play?  

Supporting verisimilitude would be an external perspective to the game, right?  

This is addressed above. My players make Simulationist decisions. They Simulate. They are Simulationists. This means making ecisions in favor of verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is the cornerstone of suspension of disbelief, which is what causes Immersion. Excuse me if I'm getting pedantic. I feel like I'm not getting through, sorry.

What is an external perspective of the game? To some spectator? No, verisimilitude is for the benefit of the partiucipants both player and Gamemaster alike.

Likewise, (with the notable exception of 'deep non-player characters') is there a common practice of gamemasters that fits what I previously described as immersion?

Probably not. So? Your example isn't enough? I can certainly imagine such a thing however, and it certainly doesn't seem unreasonable. The model should be able to handle all possible types of play if possible, not just extant ones.

Sure, Simulationism and immersion can be stretched to contain each other's properties, but could the modeling of the practice of gaming not benefit from splitting them out separately?  As in the above example, there could be three approaches to gamemastering and three different approaches to playing.

I make no attempt to equate the two things. In fact, in my previous post I explained how I thought that Immersion was the motivator for a certain stance. That motivation is simply most easily satisfied by Simulationism, IMO. They are patently different things. They are also related in my opinion. Not one-to-one either. I think that there are a whole lot of other desires that are satisfied by Simulationist play. I need a Ven Diagram here....

It didn't really go that far into whether player behaviors are more often relegated to stance and if gamemaster motivations were mostly described by the GNS.  What I am highlighting is the tendancy in this direction.  I can't see it as an all or nothing debate.

Well I may sound dogmatic, but I'm just trying to get my viewpoint across. As I indicated in that previous example, it was just an organization of the model that would fit my particular understanding. In diplaying it I hoped that people would see what I was geting at.

But I will say that all players and gamemasters have motivations, and that they all play in modes, and that they all play in stances. All the time. There, that dogmatic enough? :wink:

I am not saying does.  I am asking, for the interests of clarity, if it might be better to elevate the 'modes' of play to equal status as the arms of the GNS rather than trying to subdivide parts into smaller parts.

I think that they are just different and related things, and that there is no hierarchy. I don't mean to imply one.

I mean, if there is a bias towards immersion being a mode mostly ascribed to Simulationism, yet apparently almost exclusively a player issue, why should it be subordinate to the title Simulationism?  Why not make them twins?  (Especially considering that Simulationism - described by you as working towards the goal of verismilitude - would be at odds with immersion.)

Good summary. Each of these points is addressed above, I think. I hope that I'm advancing the understanding of the problem but I sense we are going in circles possibly. Lett me know if that is the case. Keep in mind that my understanding of such things is certainly imperfect, and that this is just my attempt to sort them out into an order that I can find use for.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-26 18:17 ]

[Le Joueur]

Mike Holmes wrote:

Fang wrote:

Except when the decision is "because I (my character) feel it is the right thing to do."  That kind of decision, if based on the mode of immersion, does not seem to fit well under the generalized intentions of Simulationism.  You can make it fit, but that seems to be either a perversion of immersion or of Simulationism.

This I don't get, and seems to be a large part of the problem in communication here.

Exactly right.

If I make a decision because I think that this is what my character would do, I am simulating the character. This is exactly Simulationism.

Again, exactly correct.

You say again later that acting with verisimilitude is not to be Immersive. How not so? If I want to Immerse myself in the character, I make decisions based on what I think the character *would* do given the circumstances. To do else would destroy the suspension of disbelief that Immerses one in the character and situation.

Ah, no.  I thought after reading Contracycle's description of immersion (and my point that it was the extreme), it would be clear that immersion is a little different than simulating a character.

While in Contracycle's extreme example the line dividing player and character is extinguished completely, I know of several occasions where the line becomes only a little blurred.  In this kind of immersion, the player performs a sophisticated adoption of the character's identity.  While not believing one is their character, nor letting things like die rolls spoil suspension of disbelief, the player practices first-person thinking.

Asking yourself, "What would the character do?" is simulation because there is some discrete calculation of what this 'other being' is like.  Heck, in what we locally call an 'avatar campaign' (where you play a character which is identical to you prior to game-start), asking yourself, "What would I do?" is still simulation.  It is that nature of second-guessing that separates 'regular' simulation from immersion.

As far as my experience goes, when 'immersing' there are no questions, something happens and you go, "I do this."  No second-guessing, no calculation, systems that force psychological mechanics on such a character divorce a player from this kind of immersive play.

Now, a word of caution, this is not what Contracycle calls immersion.  While some blurring of identity can occur, it is neither constant, chronic, nor complete.  An immersive player experiences a slightly different sort of suspension of disbelief than most and were they to be 'totally immersed,' everyday interruptions (die throwing, snacks, side conversations, gamemaster descriptions, and the like) would 'ruin' their games.

To put it simply, if you are actively 'basing your decisions' on anything other than a character's stimuli and knowledge (such as expectations of a character' behavior, knowledge of how their psychological makeup differs from your own, how soon the session will end, the verisimilitude of a session, or anything that is not immediately available to the character from the character's point of view), you are not immersing as I describe it.  As strange as this sounds, I think some aspects of it are more common than seems to be the assumption.  In fact, I would go so far as saying that it is at the root of the concept of many of the forms of escapism had in role-playing gaming.

As an aside, the immersive quality, and the potential for too deep of immersion, is what seemed to scare the public about role-playing games early on.  (If you remember, that pejorative novel Mazes and Monsters was about a college student who immersed too deeply and had trouble differentiating reality from fantasy afterwards.)

If I wanted to extend what I was trying to point out earlier, gamemasters practice Skills Testing-World-Story (SWS)* Orientation and players practice Skill Using-Immersive-Characterization (SIC)* Orientation.  Saying that World Orientation and Immersive Orientation fit together neatly under a name like Simulationism doesn't sound right.  (But then who am I to talk, I am clearly against SWTs and TLAs¹ in general.)

Sorry. Totally lost me there.

As above, making a decision about character action because it makes the character 'fit' in the verisimilar campaign is Simulationism.  Making a decision in spite of the verisimilitude of the character's action is how immersive play violates Simulationism.

Does that help?

I can understand that a gamemaster can play in a stance, but what I am trying to point out that it doesn't seem like a player cannot.  If there is no more connection between stances and whether to be player or gamemaster, then just as a gamemaster can play 'stanceless' so too should a player; is that more than just possible?

A gamemaster is always in Director stance when not playing a character. The GM is always in a stance as well. Almost the definition of director stance is doing stuff most often reserved for the gamemaster.

I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance.  Simply?  I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game.  (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

And by the way, is yours a Simulationist game?  One game, while a good example of one way of doing something, does neither a trend nor generalization make (or break).

Sorry to use a personal example. But many games these days are sans Gamemaster. In those games, certainly, everyone has the same status. They just all assume director stance much more often.

Clearly director stance is outside of immersive mode, right?  Then gamemasterless games that employ it are outside of a discussion on immersion, right?

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game.  Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist [and not] immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three.

So do I, "can do."  That's why I said "mostly incompatible."

But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.

And that's not "mostly incompatible?"

I'm not sure where you are going, but I only brought up the Gamemaster-less games to demonstrate that there are games in which you cannot differentiate between players and GMs.

'Where I am going' is that the only gamemasterless games founded on immersion are germane to the discussion of immersion.  They do exist.  In fact, I prefer playing live-action role-playing games this way; they have very little director stance and usually behave almost entirely immersive.

How do you deal with the emotional attachment to a non-player character when something happens to them?  Are there many similarities to how (light?) immersive players do?  Are you sure this is not the exception, because I have never encountered the like.

I'd say that if one doesn't empathize with one's characters at all that one is missing something. That said, my Immersion is very light on the average, and I don't break down and cry when I lose characters be they [non-player characters] or [player characters]. I will hazard a guess that many people feel this way.

Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy?  This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion.  In simulation, you have sympathy for the character's emotions.  In immersion (as I have been describing it), you have empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them).  You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

Remember, I am talking about a 'leaning' here.  A trend, a weighting, a perspective, whatever you want to call it.  I am not giving some kind of intolerant "the GNS is only about gamemastering and nothing else" statement.  I am saying that the original source material has been used to categorize exclusively gamemastering decisions and that I felt there was still some of the sound of it in "this year's model."

Well, personally I've always been of the feeling that GNS applied to a whole lot more. At least in extrapolation.

But any extrapolation either stretches the terminology beyond the obvious meaning or changes the model.  For clarity's sake, I am advocating a different model.  If you have to extrapolate Simulationism so that it becomes capable of including immersion (which, in the above, doesn't seem to fit your verisimilitude concept) then you have changed the model as much as I suggest except only by adding unconventional meanings.

As Ron would say that by Gamist we mean a player who makes Gamist decisions more often than not. This is to me actually the most important factor of GNS, that if you can identify a proclivity in a player you can cater to it more effectively. My players for the most part do not like Narrativism (and aren't comfortable making Narrativist decisions as it tends to crush the light Immersion that they are after), so I don't run Narrativist games for them.

This gets back to the other point I was trying to make.  If you have players who like for you to run a Simulationist game so they can play immersively, and yet they are not actually playing in a (verisimilar) Simulationist way, does it make sense to call them Simulationists?

Or for that matter, has anyone considered running a Narrativist game with power sharing tilted almost completely to the gamemaster so the players can play immersively?  I hate to say it, but that's mostly what I wind up doing.  (That's right, I do all the care and feeding of the story by myself, as a story, without railroading; my immersive players prefer it that way.  And it's not easy, considering how cognizant and sensitive they are to railroading.)

Doesn't making decisions on the player level in favor of verisimilitude sound at odds with immersive play?  

Supporting verisimilitude would be an external perspective to the game, right?

This is addressed above. My players make Simulationist decisions. They Simulate. They are Simulationists. This means making decisions in favor of verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is the cornerstone of suspension of disbelief, which is what causes Immersion.

Except you do not differentiate between the sympathy/empathy difference between Simulationism and immersion.  If they are making decisions about their characters, so that the characters seem 'right' in the world, they are simulating for verisimilitude; if they make decisions as the characters, they are playing immersively.  (Two can be pedantic).  Immersive play cares not a wit for being verisimilar (although immersive play can, but does not always, suffer from the lack of verisimilitude in the game).

And another thing, you seem to be implying that all suspension of disbelief causes immersion.  While it seems likely that this has to do with an overly broad definition of immersion as it applies to gaming (what I call identification with a character); considering the above, do you believe that all suspension of disbelief results in immersion (or are you using 'immersion' in place of 'character identification')?

What is an external perspective of the game? To some spectator?

Nah, that's just a fancy way of referring to things including what is often termed as meta-game concerns.

No, verisimilitude is for the benefit of the participants, both player and Gamemaster alike.

If, by this, you are implying I stand against verisimilitude, you aren't getting my point.  I like verisimilar games.  So do Simulationists, I believe.  I do not believe that verisimilitude always results in suspension of disbelief, nor do I believe that suspension of disbelief always results in immersion.

[PEDANTIC]

Verisimilitude can result in suspension of disbelief, but it can also merely provide for a likable game without it.  Suspension of disbelief can result in immersion, or it can simply cause play within the context of the sequence of in-game events.

In reverse, immersion rarely happens without suspension of disbelief, but play within the context of the sequence of in-game events can.  Suspension of disbelief can be hard to maintain without verisimilitude, but you can like games without it.

[/PEDANTIC]

Likewise, (with the notable exception of 'deep non-player characters') is there a common practice of gamemasters that fits what I previously described as immersion?

Probably not. So? Your example isn't enough? I can certainly imagine such a thing however, and it certainly doesn't seem unreasonable. The model should be able to handle all possible types of play if possible, not just extant ones.

But it doesn't.  Especially when you apply the verisimilar standard to Simulationism.  This is the point I am belaboring.

Sure, Simulationism and immersion can be stretched to contain each other's properties, but could the modeling of the practice of gaming not benefit from splitting them out separately?  As in the above example, there could be three approaches to gamemastering and three different approaches to playing.

I make no attempt to equate the two things. In fact, in my previous post I explained how I thought that Immersion was the motivator for a certain stance. That motivation is simply most easily satisfied by Simulationism, IMO. They are patently different things.

Then you agree with me?  If they are patently different things, then how can you call an immersive player a Simulationist?  As they are clearly not attracted to Narrativist or Gamist pursuits either, this means they are divorced from the GNS model.

They are also related in my opinion. Not one-to-one either. I think that there are a whole lot of other desires that are satisfied by Simulationist play. I need a Ven Diagram here....

I also believe they are related, perhaps nearly parallel.  That is why I suggested first that the GNS seemed thus more gamemaster-centric and then that perhaps a twin of it should exist for players.  (Possibly suggesting them in reverse order, I think.)

It didn't really go that far into whether player behaviors are more often relegated to stance and if gamemaster motivations were mostly described by the GNS.  What I am highlighting is the tendancy in this direction.  I can't see it as an all or nothing debate.

Well, I may sound dogmatic, but I'm just trying to get my viewpoint across. As I indicated in that previous example, it was just an organization of the model that would fit my particular understanding. In displaying it I hoped that people would see what I was getting at.

I do see your viewpoint, and, believe it or not, take it very well.  All I wanted to see was how you interpreted the immersive play mode as I described it.  We have gotten into what looks like an argument because I have not communicated it very well.  Is it clear now?

I am not saying does.  I am asking, for the interests of clarity, if it might be better to elevate the 'modes' of play to equal status as the arms of the GNS rather than trying to subdivide parts into smaller parts.

I think that they are just different and related things, and that there is no hierarchy. I don't mean to imply one.

I realize you didn't, I was making my plea for the collective audience because it is my understanding that most parties include immersive play under Simulationism out of hand.  I have a hard time accepting that (out of hand).

I mean, if there is a bias towards immersion being a mode mostly ascribed to Simulationism, yet apparently almost exclusively a player issue, why should it be subordinate to the title Simulationism?  Why not make them twins?  (Especially considering that Simulationism - described by you as working towards the goal of verismilitude - would be at odds with immersion.)

Good summary. Each of these points is addressed above, I think. I hope that I'm advancing the understanding of the problem, but I sense we are going in circles possibly. Let me know if that is the case. Keep in mind that my understanding of such things is certainly imperfect, and that this is just my attempt to sort them out into an order that I can find use for.

We are definitely circling.  Until I get a grasp on your attitudes about the differences between (what should I call them?) sympathetic and empathetic play (perhaps simulating and emulating a character?), I can't really understand your opinion on what I originally said.

Fang Langford

* Added for clarity in this edition.

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-27 15:34 ]

[Mike Holmes]

Ah, no.  I thought after reading Contracycle's description of immersion (and my point that it was the extreme), it would be clear that immersion is a little different than simulating a character.

Well, then we disagree over a definition. As I spent a whole couple of posts trying to explain, this definition is pointless. It doesn't help me out at all. My opinion is that what Contracycle describes is but one end of a spectrum of Immersion. Even if you make a distinction that there is some line that you can cross where you begin to actually identify with the character (which we could debate in a different thread where we'd probably need to bring in some psychologists), all of this behavior is supported by making Simulationist decisions. Let me elaborate.

Whether you act a certain way because the  motivation is the character's, or because you've become the character, the action will still seem Versimilar. How could it not? The decision or motivation to go over that edge and become the character will still result in versimilar actions.

(Unless you propose that these players merge their identities to the characters in some sort of fusion that makes the player play somehow as though they were both peopole at the same time or something odd like that where they would include factets of their real world existence into the portrayal. Like a player having portraying his knight charater as saying that he want's to go to McDonald's because the player wants to. That would be odd indeed, and I truely the exception (and possibly indicative of a disorder as you suggested). I don't think that we can consider such behavior in the context of games. Anyhow, assuming that's not what you meant...)

As I've said, I consider the motivation for a particular style of play to be a separate thing from the style itself. So, Immersion is the motivation, and Simulation is the style used to best satisfy that motivation.

What I would agree to is considering Deep Immersion and Immerson Light to be different motivations and consider the ramifications of that separately (though at this point I'm not sure that I can see any obvious ones).

As such, you could extrapolate that there was a style that followed from this reason for making decisions, let's call it Immersionism. But then you'd also have Portrayalism, Safetyism, and any other ism that you'd care to make of a motivation.

The point of GNS is that these motivations are broad and do subsume a number of similar motivations. Why? Because it is a high level model. The assumption (and quite correct in my experience) is that if you narrow down considerations to one of these three that you'll design a better game than if you did not. Certainly, feel free to design a game around "Immersionist" principles. But I'll hazard a guess and say that you may not find too much to work with (enforce Actor stance somehow?).

The GNS model has utility, as I see it. This is not to say that we should ignore other motivations such as Immersion, but that we should consider it outside of such models. For example, my assertion that the First-Person mode is vital to Immersionism (obvious, but a preliminary dissection of the motivation).

As above, making a decision about character action because it makes the character 'fit' in the verisimilar campaign is Simulationism.  Making a decision in spite of the verisimilitude of the character's action is how immersive play violates Simulationism.

Does that help?

Again, I cannot see how these two methods would produce anything but the same result, or at least to Versimilar results. The motivation may be slightly different, but the result is the same. They both will produce Simulationist play. Thisnk of the model in it's negative sense. Not only do we have the normal definition of Simulationism which we've agreed on, but also we have the one that says that Simulationism is not Gamism or Narrativism. That is that Simulationism is making decisions on something (reasonable) other than based on challenge or story. I say reasonable because an unreasonable person might interject that you could base your decisions on astrology or something (astrologism), and these are not forms of play that you find in my experience.

This is not logically valid, I understand, but it is meant to help intuitively.

I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance.  Simply?  I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game.  (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

This is the reason that I brought in games that have no Gamemaster. In those games the players do have all of the power of the Gamemaster. The stance model pertains to all types of play.

Clearly director stance is outside of immersive mode, right?  Then gamemasterless games that employ it are outside of a discussion on immersion, right?

This sylogism doesn't float. I need water. Trees need water. Therefore I am a tree. I never implied that gamemasterless games didn't or couldn't employ Immersion, only that it was likely rare. And as you say below you know of a good example.

The idea I am trying to get at here (I did say it was complicated), is closer to examining which of the GNS parts would likely be played in a gamemasterless game.  Clearly everyone could play immersive, but that seems mostly incompatible with both Gamist and Narrativist play.

Finally, if such were conducted, do you think it would be more accurate (and at least less confusing) to call it Simulationist [and not] immersive?

I'm not positive that games without gamemasters do go best with one of G, N, or S, I suspect that they can do any of the three.

So do I, "can do."  That's why I said "mostly incompatible."

Yes, my point is, in fact, that Immersion is "mostly Incompatible" with Gamism and Narrativism. That Simulationism is the best mode to be in to satisfy the desire to Immerse.

But the players have a lot of directorial power, FWIW. This would make them seem to have something in common with Narrativism. And it is much harder to be Immersed in these games because of it.

And that's not "mostly incompatible?"

Yes, very incompatible. But keep in mind that players shift stances constantly to satisfy their various desires. This may also be a source of confusion. Players rarely only play in one stance (in fact I'd venture that it's impossible). They flip back and forth as circumstances dictate. One minute I'm Immersed in Actor stance, the next I'm creating in Director Stance.

'Where I am going' is that the only gamemasterless games founded on immersion are germane to the discussion of immersion.  They do exist.  In fact, I prefer playing live-action role-playing games this way; they have very little director stance and usually behave almost entirely immersive.

OK, these are Simulationist then, I'll bet. That is players make decisions in the games that make the characters act "naturally". I'll bet there are some in it for the portrayal and a few to author as well, though. And most will have at least a bit of each.

Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy?  This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion.  In simulation, you have sympathy for the character's emotions.  In immersion (as I have been describing it), you have empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them).  You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

Off topic, but you're right, I sometimes do some of each, but to be fair, I sympathize a lot more than I empathize. Still, the effect is the same and game design would be accomplished the sme way to suppport either, so I'll use Simulationist tactics to get me there.

But any extrapolation either stretches the terminology beyond the obvious meaning or changes the model.  For clarity's sake, I am advocating a different model.  If you have to extrapolate Simulationism so that it becomes capable of including immersion (which, in the above, doesn't seem to fit your verisimilitude concept) then you have changed the model as much as I suggest except only by adding unconventional meanings.

Well, talk to my partner Ralph Mazza AKA Valamir. He has advocated that for a while. and I've agreed with him that the Sexier term would be Explorationism. Would that cover your Immersionism too as you see it? I think it would. But I see Ron's point too, that changing a term just because it isn't intuitive may lead to constant bickering about (who killed who) what terms to use. The real question is does the model with the definitions as explained hold water. Call Simulationism "Squanch" for all I care. It still means what we've agreed it means.

This gets back to the other point I was trying to make.  If you have players who like for you to run a Simulationist game so they can play immersively, and yet they are not actually playing in a (verisimilar) Simulationist way, does it make sense to call them Simulationists?

As much as calling Power-Players Gamists. Categories. Ven Diagrams. Falls inside easy. No, I don't want to hear about Power-Playerism.

Or for that matter, has anyone considered running a Narrativist game with power sharing tilted almost completely to the gamemaster so the players can play immersively?  I hate to say it, but that's mostly what I wind up doing.  (That's right, I do all the care and feeding of the story by myself, as a story, without railroading; my immersive players prefer it that way.  And it's not easy, considering how cognizant and sensitive they are to railroading.)

By Ron's definition that isn't Narativism. It is Dramatism, however, which is one of the reasons for the change in terminology. When done well I like this form of Simulationism a lot. But it's a hard one to pull off well.

implying that all suspension of disbelief causes immersion.  While it seems likely that this has to do with an overly broad definition of immersion as it applies to gaming (what I call identification with a character); considering the above, do you believe that all suspension of disbelief results in immersion (or are you using 'immersion' in place of 'character identification')?

As you suspected, the latter. Narrowing further is not useful in coming up with a whole mode of play.

What is an external perspective of the game? To some spectator?

Nah, that's just a fancy way of referring to things including what is often termed as meta-game concerns.

Motivations?

If, by this, you are implying I stand against verisimilitude, you aren't getting my point.  I like verisimilar games.  So do Simulationists, I believe.  I do not believe that verisimilitude always results in suspension of disbelief, nor do I believe that suspension of disbelief always results in immersion.

Hmm. Versimilitude is a tool in achieving suspension od disbelief. It helps. Suspension of disbelief helps one Immerse. They are not the be all, they are tools. As such, it makes sense to use verisimilitude (which is Simulationism) to get to Immersion. Maybe just as importantly, one should not use the other modes (N or S) because they tend to work against verisimilitude, suspension od disbelief, and thus Immersion. I to am speaking of tendencies.

Verisimilitude can result in suspension of disbelief, but it can also merely provide for a likable game without it.  Suspension of disbelief can result in immersion, or it can simply cause play within the context of the sequence of in-game events.

In reverse, immersion rarely happens without suspension of disbelief, but play within the context of the sequence of in-game events can.  Suspension of disbelief can be hard to maintain without verisimilitude, but you can like games without it.

All true. Simulationism can lead to Immersion but other things as well. Again, it is not a one-for-one relationship. Simulationism satisfies many desires. You haven't refuted anything that I've said.

Then you agree with me?  If they are patently different things, then how can you call an immersive player a Simulationist?  As they are clearly not attracted to Narrativist or Gamist pursuits either, this means they are divorced from the GNS model.

Just like I can call myself a Human and a Gamer. I am more than one thing. These each describe me in different realms. One is species, and the other is hobby. Simulationist is the way a player makes decisions, Immersion is a goal (or maybe stance). If I want Immersion, then I am best off with a Simulationist game, note that if I want to explore a setting, I may also be best off with Simulationism (which is why Ron says that Explorationism is a subset of Simulationism, BTW).

I also believe they are related, perhaps nearly parallel.  That is why I suggested first that the GNS seemed thus more gamemaster-centric and then that perhaps a twin of it should exist for players.  (Possibly suggesting them in reverse order, I think.)

They are not parallel, that would suggest one-to-one. This is just not the case. For each of the three modes there are multiple stances or motivations that are associated. And if you want to say that mode is more a gamemaster thing, and stance more a player thing, that doesn't change that fact.

I do see your viewpoint, and, believe it or not, take it very well.  All I wanted to see was how you interpreted the immersive play mode as I described it.  We have gotten into what looks like an argument because I have not communicated it very well.  Is it clear now?

Yes, this may very much be a viewpoint discussion. And interestingly I have some things in more in common with your viewpoint than with the standard. Like believeing that motivations should be considered separately drom methods. That has a lot in common I think with your desire to separate out Immersion. I just see a different realtionship.

I think that they are just different and related things, and that there is no hierarchy. I don't mean to imply one.

I realize you didn't, I was making my plea for the collective audience because it is my understanding that most parties include immersive play under Simulationism out of hand.  I have a hard time accepting that (out of hand).
[/quote]
Well, I accept it out of hand as well. Tell me how making decisions based on story helps Immersion? Tell me how making decisions based on tactics helps Immersion. Not narrativist, not gamist. Must be Simulationist. Does this mean that Immersion can't occur in a Narrativist game? Hardly. It's just more difficult. When you are smapping out of character to make directorial decisions it can be very hard to feel immersed. There is a tendency therefore for players who demand immersion to play simulationist games. This is all anybody is saying, and I'll stand by you and fight anyone who says otherwise.

But if I want to cater to those of my players who want immersion, I'll be maing a Simulationist game.

We are definitely circling.  Until I get a grasp on your attitudes about the differences between (what should I call them?) sympathetic and empathetic play (perhaps simulating and emulating a character?), I can't really understand your opinion on what I originally said.

Any better now? Probably not. eh

Hey, let's design a game, didn't we talk about a card game a while back?  :smile:

Mike

(edited because there are way too many stupid tags in this post, dangit)

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-09-27 18:27 ]

[Le Joueur]

Okay, we seem to finally getting to the (hoped for) point on which we agree to disagree.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Fang Langford wrote:

Ah, no.  I thought after reading Contracycle's description of immersion (and my point that it was the extreme), it would be clear that immersion is a little different than simulating a character.

Well, then we disagree over a definition.

You have a talent for understatement.  (We also differ in approaches to analysis, but I'll address that later.)

As I spent a whole couple of posts trying to explain, this definition is pointless.

That, sir, is purely a matter of opinion.  (And one of generalization, more later.)

It doesn't help me out at all.

Truer words have never been spoken.  This was neither my intent nor any expected result.  (Quite frankly, this also comes from our widely different approaches to analysis.)

Whether you act a certain way because the motivation is the character's, or because you've become the character, the action will still seem Verisimilar. How could it not?

It's all a matter of the audience.  Something that convinces you in verisimilitude could be jarringly twentieth-century for that medieval literature major sitting across the table from you.  Immersed, you might be acting as you wish and yet be so jarringly out of touch with the expectations of the game and the other players that you become a spoiler.  Tailoring your play to the audience (when their expectations differ from yours), becomes a layer of thinking between you and immersion for the sake of verisimilitude.  I cannot make it plainer than that.

As I've said, I consider the motivation for a particular style of play to be a separate thing from the style itself. So, Immersion is the motivation, and Simulation is the style used to best satisfy that motivation.

Throw a "frequently" in there and that is something I have repeatedly tried to say here.  Personally, I believe the above also echoes with 'an immersively motivated player is 'frequently' best satisfied by Simulationist gamemastering.'  (I say that because I cannot imagine how 'an immersive gamemaster is best satisfied by Simulationist players' makes any sense.)  And this was at the root of the 'the GNS model is mostly for gamemasters' crack

What I would agree to is considering Deep Immersion and Immersion Light to be different motivations and consider the ramifications of that separately (though at this point I'm not sure that I can see any obvious ones).

As such, you could extrapolate that there was a style that followed from this reason for making decisions, let's call it Immersionism. But then you'd also have Portrayalism, Safetyism, and any other ism that you'd care to make of a motivation.

And that was what I wrote about earlier.  I do like to differentiate between player styles (I'm a deconstructionist).  Here is a list I sent earlier.  Although you'll have to forgive, today I am sick of making up jargon (and more –isms), so I'll stick to short definitions:

• Play treating one's character as merely a collective tool for interacting with context of the game
  
• Playing to entertain the other players (this would be "Portrayalism?")
  
• Play primarily using player knowledge to heighten 'interest' in certain qualities of the game (often for irony, but not always for humor)
  
• Play where the player shares the chores of the gamemaster insofar as they relate to their own character (much like your gamemasterless experiences, I believe)
  
• Playing to experience the setting and all its 'grandeur' from a personal perspective
  
• Play that is primarily empathetic versus sympathetic, but not necessarily equating one's emotions with those of the character[/list:u]
  
  After reviewing these and others, I concluded that not only did these kinds of differentiation not fit to single components of the GNS, some fit best as none of them at all.  (I have been using this last one, versus your description of Simulationism as working towards verisimilitude, to underscore this idea.)
  
  Ultimately, it is our separate manners of approach to analysis that creates this difference.  Loosely, you could call me a deconstructionist, I look for smaller, distinct components and when I have enough of an issue covered, I being looking for a structure that either supports them all or invalidates them.
  
  If I am not mistaken you method is a type of generalizations dependant on the established principles.  You look for ways that potential discrepancies can be accounted for in an active model.
  
  It's the classic difference between 'top-down' versus 'bottom-up.'  If we can agree on that disagreement, this debate has concluded.
  
  

  The point of GNS is that these motivations are broad and do subsume a number of similar motivations. Why? Because it is a high level model.

  This both underscores the approach to generalize and adherence to the GNS model.
  
  

  I honestly think there is still more to gamemastering than just director stance.  Simply?  I might suggest its things parallel to having author stance with the entirety of the game.  (Director stance works on a game within it; gamemastering calls in external factors as well as a grand overview external perspective that I think is absent in even the highest level of player director stance.)

  This is the reason that I brought in games that have no Gamemaster. In those games the players do have all of the power of the Gamemaster. The stance model pertains to all types of play.

  Yes but you seem quite convinced that they only function as having a 'distributed control' framework.  I insist that a truly gamemasterless game would run even without director or author stance.  I see this easily maintainable in a live-action role-playing setting based on obvious quantities of immersive play.  I say immersive and not Simulationist because few people in these games as I have seen them spend any time attempting verisimilitude (such as actual physical combat?), yet they all concentrating on what their characters were doing (as in all the back-stabbing associated with courtly life) as opposed to 'doing it right.'
  
  

  'Where I am going' is that the only gamemasterless games founded on immersion are germane to the discussion of immersion.  They do exist.  In fact, I prefer playing live-action role-playing games this way; they have very little director stance and usually behave almost entirely immersive.
  

  OK, these are Simulationist then, I'll bet. That is players make decisions in the games that make the characters act "naturally". I'll bet there are some in it for the portrayal and a few to author as well, though. And most will have at least a bit of each.

  I would not have suggested them if they were primarily Simulationist, that would have been a poor example.  And no, few people were concerned with the 'naturality' of their characters; they were too concerned with their characters' hidden agendas (it was a game of intrigue).
  
  Of course there were bits of each, my point is, the bulk of it was not Narrativist, Simulationist, Gamist, or any sum of the three; it functioned primarily on immersion.  Mind you I call it a relatively minor example and clearly state that I do not think it underscores any flaw in the GNS model; it was merely a robust exception that I think calls for some further thought.
  
  

  Are you sure you are not confusing sympathy with empathy?  This relates to the subtle difference between Simulationism and immersion.  In simulation, you have sympathy for the character's emotions.  In immersion (as I have been describing it), you have empathy; you (in some fashion) feel their emotions (at least some of them).  You can identify (the term I prefer) with a character without empathizing (or even sympathizing) with them, and that is what I think would be the "missing something" of which you refer.

  Off topic, but you're right, I sometimes do some of each, but to be fair, I sympathize a lot more than I empathize. Still, the effect is the same and game design would be accomplished the same way to support either, so I'll use Simulationist tactics to get me there.

  Except I wanted note made that while Simulationist games work for both, both were not included under your description of Simulationist play.  I realize because of the difference in our analysis techniques that this again, "doesn't help [you] out at all."  That was not my point.  I am trying to understand this difference myself.  Discussion, I thought, would be the prime way to come to an understanding; yet my usual brief tone has lead to what appears to be another attack on the GNS model.
  
  Just another quote (this time out of context), one that made clear a difference of approach.
  
  

  Narrowing further is not useful in coming up with a whole mode of play.

  Simply on principle, I disagree.  (That's what makes me a deconstructions, loosely termed.)
  
  

  You haven't refuted anything that I've said.

  That's because I wasn't trying to argue.  I was clumsily trying to elicit some dialogue on differing levels of character identification and how they seemed to get 'outside' of the GNS model.  Aristotelian dialogue is my habit, and I'm sorry it makes me sound like I'm argumentative.
  
  

  We are definitely circling.

  Any better now? Probably not. eh

  Depends on how you view die-hard deconstructionists.
  
  Fang Langford