The Forge Archives

This is a reply to Mike Holmes, split from http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=7968">another take on "the character doesn't exist".   Since this isn't talking about whether characters exist (an argument which has long since bogged down), I think the issues he brings up should be a separate topic.  

The issue is what the position of an "immersionist" is, and how it relates to narrative and storytelling.  

Quote from: Mike HolmesWhat bugs the "immersionist" is that he can see the player's decisions behind the character's. Yes, this would occur if the player made the character do something in an implausible or inconsistent way in order to make the plot go a particular way. But it can also happen when a player makes a completely plausible decision to, for example, drive the plot in a particular direction. Sometimes it's just obvious, despite the actual decision that the player is selecting being the same.  

This tallies exactly with how I think of immersion, and it was defined as the distinguishing characteristic during discussion among many people on rec.games.frp.advocacy.   Immersion is aided by making artifice less visible.  For example, as I watch a film, it could be that there are frequent mistakes like the boom mike dropping into the shot or seeing the reflection of the cameraman.  Even though the story told is the same (i.e. the boom mike doesn't change how I understand the characters), the experience is changed.  

In terms of role-playing, the equivalent to seeing the boom mike is seeing actions taken with obvious intent outside of the in-game conception.  For example, the players might say that they are going overland instead of taking the main road.  They then see the GM erasing and writing furiously for a minute, then shows them a map and notes that they see a dark castle nearby.  Like with the boom mike, the artifice of the creation sticks out.  

This brings up that "plausibility" and "consistency" are complex issues.  For example, the GM may be able to later come up with a explanation for that castle being there which is consistent with other in-sessions events.  However, it was also obvious to the players and to the GM himself that it was not consistent with his original vision, as reflected in the old map before the erasing.  The same applies to character action.  For example, say I come up with a rationalization to get my PC to act in a particular way for story reasons.  I may be able to make this consistent externally, but it may well conflict with my internal picture of what the PC is feeling.  Like with the GM's map, other players may be able to notice this as well.  

Quote from: Mike HolmesThis gives an idea of the spectrum of what I'll call the Authorial Appearance. It's precisely this Authorial Appearance that the "Immersionist" doesn't want. Because at that point, the game ceases being a Simulation (hence Simulationism) in which the player is participating, and becomes a collaborative storytelling act at some level. Which has an entirely different feel to some. So if you want the Simulation feel, you avoid Authorial Appearance.  

This makes some sense, but I think it clashes with the GNS usage of the word "simulationism".  As I understand it, GNS Narrativism doesn't require Author stance play, or Authorial Appearance as you put it.  So it is possible for something to have the "simulation feel" as you put it, but still be Narrativist in GNS terms.  For example, my Water-Uphill campaign had no Authorial Appearance.  It was about four children from the modern world who find themselves in a bizarre fantasy world.  As you put it in another article, this is all about Situation.  There was no undramatic choice for them to do.

(Arrgh!  I'm having to write this a second time.  Hope I can remember everything I said before . . . No, I can't.  I did my best, though.)

I have a problem with the term immersionist, and I think discussion of it is exceedingly complex and tricky.

First, it can appear in any GNS mode, though the definitions and uses I see often sound like some sort of desired organic simulationism.  I don't see why I cannot be immersed within a narrative itself.  Or within the competition itself.  My players tend to get immersed in whatever style we're playing.  

Second, it is related to stance but not dependent on it.  Again, I think immersion is possible in any stance just like in any GNS mode.  Though sometimes immersionism sounds like author stance within simulationism.

The way it is commonly used, sounds to me like "in-character out of the rules" or "locked within the imagined reality".

Third, I think immersion is entirely dependent on a player's imaginative processes.  I find it easy to be completely immersed within character only to pop out and metagame for a moment before dipping back in.  In fact, to enjoy a game I must have immersion within the imagined reality, even when I'm controlling it through metagame.  Of course, I read, write, and analyze novels everyday, so that may just be me.

Is an immersionist supposed to be someone who sits back and lets the story unfold upon them?  Is an immersionist really just an explorer lost among the elements of play?  Would "hard-core actor" be a better term for what some people mean by this style of player?

Quote from: John KimImmersion is aided by making artifice less visible.  For example, as I watch a film, it could be that there are frequent mistakes like the boom mike dropping into the shot or seeing the reflection of the cameraman.  Even though the story told is the same (i.e. the boom mike doesn't change how I understand the characters), the experience is changed.  

In terms of role-playing, the equivalent to seeing the boom mike is seeing actions taken with obvious intent outside of the in-game conception.

Hmm. Another way to look at that analogy: in a film, the artifice becomes visible when the director uses a stylistic technique that deliberately and blatantly reminds the audience that they are watching a film -- such as blood splattering on the camera lens during a fight scene, or using split-screen techniques, or freezing the action during a voiceover.

I am in the same camp as David, in that I can transition in and out of character without losing my sense of immersion in the setting. As I am always in the character's head (he, she or it being a product of my own, after all), it is never jarring; I just pick up where I left off. I never lose track of a character's internal consistency just because someone asks me to make a die roll or what I want on my pizza, and most people would consider me a Method Actor foremost (to use terminology from Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering).

Hello,

Quick reference: thoughts on why immersion is a tar baby.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: David ChunnFirst, it can appear in any GNS mode, though the definitions and uses I see often sound like some sort of desired organic simulationism.  I don't see why I cannot be immersed within a narrative itself.  Or within the competition itself.  My players tend to get immersed in whatever style we're playing.

As you say, it is a tricky term -- but that's exactly why I want to discuss it.  It was brought up by several different people in recent threads.  
I would agree that immersion certainly doesn't seem exclusive to, say, Simulationism.  However, I would caution against treating "immersed" as meaning nothing more than "interested" or "engaged".  I would say there is plenty of interesting entertainment that isn't immersive.  

Quote from: David ChunnThird, I think immersion is entirely dependent on a player's imaginative processes.  I find it easy to be completely immersed within character only to pop out and metagame for a moment before dipping back in.  In fact, to enjoy a game I must have immersion within the imagined reality, even when I'm controlling it through metagame.  Of course, I read, write, and analyze novels everyday, so that may just be me.  

I'd agree that it's personal, but I would think that there are similarities and patterns.  Personally, I find that there are some things which definitely jar with my immersion -- though not all mechanics or even metagame action do so.  For example, I find statements like "Your character feels X" to be pretty impossible to internalize.  I also find that Whimsy Cards do this for me.  I use them in the campaign I'm currently playing, but as a player I find I tend to forget them when I get into character.  It works better if the metagame mechanic maps to something in the PC -- i.e. spending drama points for things which my character really wants is easier.  

Quote from: David ChunnIs an immersionist supposed to be someone who sits back and lets the story unfold upon them?  Is an immersionist really just an explorer lost among the elements of play?  Would "hard-core actor" be a better term for what some people mean by this style of player?  

I don't think that immersionist implies a passive role -- it just implies action through character, as opposed to action by defining background or external events.

Quote from: RaconteurXI am in the same camp as David, in that I can transition in and out of character without losing my sense of immersion in the setting. As I am always in the character's head (he, she or it being a product of my own, after all), it is never jarring; I just pick up where I left off.

The ease of this transition indicates to me that this is not what I would use the term Immersion to describe at all.

But, this term now has positive connotations, negative connotations, and substantial, vague, spread to other related things.  It should be stricken and more precise terminology employed.

My thoughts on immersion were posted here in July 2001

Quote from: contracycleBut, this term now has positive connotations, negative connotations, and substantial, vague, spread to other related things.  It should be stricken and more precise terminology employed.

This has been said before, but you need terminology which actually speaks to the distinction.  Just saying to avoid the word doesn't help if it leaves people flailing to express the same idea.  Despite this having been said before, several veteran posters brought it up on the "do characters exist" threads, including http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=82341&highlight=#82341">Valamir (who suggested a definition of "deep immersion") and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=83421&highlight=#83421">Mike Holmes (who suggested a definition of "immersionist").  

So any suggestions on the more precise terminology?

The more precise phrase would be something like "lack of the appearance of authorial control in a way that's problematic for an individual's personal feeling of immersion." Anyone want to pose a single term for which that's the definition?

BTW, John, I think it is Simulationism to an extent. That they are on some level equivalent. I've worked with this for a long time, and I can't come up with anything else to which Simulationism refers. Note, that Sim and Nar can be hybridized. So it's not surprising that one can have both simultaneosly. This doesn't say anything about the definition of Narrativism. It's a "that without which it is not" sort of a definition. That is, Simulationism is making decisions in such a way as to attempt to mimimize Authorial Appearance so as to ensure that the decision is not problematic to anyone's personal feeling of immersion (most notably the decision maker's).

Note that to be precise that Authorial Appearance isn't quite right, either. There are other things that can disrupt immersion in a way similar to the appearance of Author stance, so in a way it's just indicative of the sort of thing that's problematic. I'd venture Metagame Appearance, but that's not quite right either. Non in-world? I dunno.

This is why I had that whole thread before about how this is a different axis. Whether that's true or not, it seems to be a very specific sort of requirement to me. That is, it's very much a non-appearance of something that we're looking for. Whereas Gamism and Narrativism are looking for some particular quality in the decision to appear. So when looking at conguence, we're looking at maintaining some minimum level of in-game plausibility while also looking for the positive qualities on that "other axis".

Mike

Quote from: John Kim
So any suggestions on the more precise terminology?

Well, if it were up to me, I would distinguish between In Character, Method Actor, and Trance State play modes.

But these of course arise from my own particular view; what I mean more clearly is that a discussion of the phenomenon should proceed without the term immersion, and after the discussion we can approach terminology.  I'm not sure everyone would agree there are three 'degrees', for example.

Quote from: Mike HolmesThe more precise phrase would be something like "lack of the appearance of authorial control in a way that's problematic for an individual's personal feeling of immersion." Anyone want to pose a single term for which that's the definition?

BTW, John, I think it is Simulationism to an extent. That they are on some level equivalent. I've worked with this for a long time, and I can't come up with anything else to which Simulationism refers.
...
I'd venture Metagame Appearance, but that's not quite right either. Non in-world? I dunno.
...
That is, it's very much a non-appearance of something that we're looking for.

Wow.  Well, I'd avoided talking about this before, but the above is exactly how we defined and talked about "Simulationism" as part of the Threefold Model on rec.games.frp.advocacy (circa 1997-1998).  There, simulationism was defined negatively as valuing the resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game issues to affect the decision.  Within this forum, though, I've felt that it was confusing to say this since Ron's GNS model has defined the term differently.

I don't think GNS does define it differently, really. In fact, it's the creation of Narrativism and the discarding of Dramatism which overlapped that makes GNS what it is, IMO. The specific terms of GNS are different, especially the idea that it's decisions that we're talking about, but you can take that definition and talk it all around, and what it comes to is what I'm describing above. No surprise that it's the same definition as what you had. And why the GNS definition has people saying occasionally that Simulationism doesn't exist.

In-game or In-world can also be problematic. Because you can also throw in in-theme, or in-genere or other things. It seems that these are contradictory, but nobody objects in Feng Shui when a character does something suicidal. It's not that the action is actually suicidal, the rules make it not so. But the character doesn't know that. It's just that it's in-genre to do outrageous things. So it all depends on what you're simulating as to what the parameters are. Even themes are OK as long as you're playing to the established themes, and not making new ones.

Mike

What confuses me about the term immersion as it pops up on the Forge occasionally is this: what/who is being immersed and into what?  Can I be immersed within the game's creative agenda?  

By a strict conventional definition of the word, it is certainly possible to be profoundly involved within Story Now, Step On Up, and assorted metagame.  Truth be told, the most "immersed" players I've ever seen were a group of guys conducting the specifics of their very gamist D&D combats.  The only time I see metagame as a problem for immersion is within the realm of simulationism, which is to be expected.

If we are considering immersion to be entirely through the medium of character inserted into an imaginary world, then I think a better term to use would be character immersion.  That is still a problematic term, but an improvement IMO.

A narrativist immersionist doesn't want to be hampered by Simulationism.  A sim immersionist doesn't want to be hampered by competition and metagame.  Etc.

Finally, I'm in a poetic mood today, so I suggest the preference of immersionists in terms of simulationist play be called puppets, no strings.

Quote from: Mike HolmesI don't think GNS does define it differently, really.
...
In-game or In-world can also be problematic. Because you can also throw in in-theme, or in-genere or other things. It seems that these are contradictory, but nobody objects in Feng Shui when a character does something suicidal. It's not that the action is actually suicidal, the rules make it not so. But the character doesn't know that. It's just that it's in-genre to do outrageous things. So it all depends on what you're simulating as to what the parameters are. Even themes are OK as long as you're playing to the established themes, and not making new ones.

I don't follow your second paragraph.  Sure, you can change the definition of rgfa Simulationism to throw in in-genre and in-theme -- but that changes what it means (obviously).  This exact change was suggested by David Berkman during rgfa debates, but it was soundly rejected by those on rgfa who identified with simulationism.  (I discuss this in my essay on http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/origin.html">The Origin of the Threefold Model, by the way.)  

In rgfa's way of speaking, Feng Shui is absolutely not Simulationist.  In fact, discussion of FS was a point of contention between more simulation-oriented posters (like Mary Kuhner and myself) and other posters like Jose Garcia and Bruce Baugh.  cf Bruce's http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=56fqi2%24aim2%40nwnews.wa.com&rnum=1">Genre and Believability thread from 1996, for example.  There we discussed problems with the immersive point-of-view of a Feng Shui PC with Lightning Reload (who has an infinite supply of bullets).  

I don't think either definition is right or wrong -- but GNS Simulationism is very different from rgfa Simulationism.