Immersion and Story

[Mike Holmes]

Ok, there you have the difference.

I'd agree with the definition here as I think what breaks SOD is a matter of taste. And it doesn't matter, really. It's only that the player has some criteria, whatever that may be that makes for Simulationism. Something which, stepping outside of it, makes the player less able to "immerse". Doesn't really matter what it is. Just that it's there.

So for some brands of Sim, playing to themes will be seen as problematic, while in others it won't.

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?

I'm so glad you asked. I've been waiting to talk about the feeling. :-)

Have you ever been playing in a first-person shooter computer game, and you forgot who you were? I mean, at some point you "wake up" and think, "gee, I wasn't myself for a while"? Has that ever happened to you?

Have you ever been watching a movie, and at some point your stomach growled, and you suddenly realize that you're not in the movie? That it's not real? And you look around to reassure yourself that the "real world" still exists, and that the movie isn't reality? And then felt pangs at the fact that the movie world wasn't real? Not that RL is bad, but that it'd be nice to have two lives?

Happens to me all the time. I can even get there in my head sitting here typing at work (hope my boss doesn't come around, takes a second to snap out of it).

The point is that there's a level beyond just "interest" or even "fascination", where your brainwave state changes so radically that you actually temporarily drop out of normal reality for all cognitive purposes. Without sensory deprivation, this can't be maintained for long, but even in a crowded room and carrying on a conversation I can do it for thirty seconds or so at a time (hard to know really because you usually lose all track of time).

I've said it's like Mysticism (RL), and I mean that. I've had existential episodes that had similar effects on me, for example.

That's "immersion" in it's most extreme form, temporarily delusional (I suppose you could become permenantly delusional, but I don't think that's a level we're ready for yet). And you don't need to get all the way there in order to enjoy the feeling. In fact, that level of immersion is pretty rare. Partial immersion is often just fine, however. Where you're sorta hovering on the edge of it.

I'd like to add that, in addition to the novelty of this sort of immersion, there's a very drug-like feeling that I, at least, get. I'm sure it's chemical. I actually get high on it. It bears some similarities to the feeling I sometimes get when I spend too much time in water (almost groggy). So don't be surprised if some players are really attached to it, like any altered state.

I wanted to talk about it because it's not easy to describe. I've probably done a poor job here, but I had to try. I think that it may not be a phenomenon that everyone experiences (depsite claims from a lot of people that they do "immerse"). Anyhow, if they do, then I admire those who can do it without the "sensory deprivation" of inputs that take me, and others out of it. If that's the case, then I do believe that we're talking about personal biology and other inalterable things as part of the criteria.

Answer this last one carefully. When you picture what's happening in a scene in a RPG, do you see your character, and what he's doing?


When I'm immersing, I don't see my character; I see what he sees, through his eyes.

Mike

[John Kim]

(Re: Simulationism) Ok, there you have the difference.

I'd agree with the definition here as I think what breaks SOD is a matter of taste. And it doesn't matter, really. It's only that the player has some criteria, whatever that may be that makes for Simulationism. Something which, stepping outside of it, makes the player less able to "immerse". Doesn't really matter what it is. Just that it's there.

Let me try to follow this.  What you're saying is that the "real" meaning of Simulationism to you is that the player is trying for immersion -- and you think that the GNS definition (i.e. prioritizing Exploration) is closer to this than the rgfa definition (i.e. disliking metagame issues impacting in-game resolution).  

Personally, I think all three of these definitions are different.  I agree with all three -- that is, they all seem like valid distinctions.  

However, your position seems bothersome to me.  By equating immersionist (more specifically, character immersion) with Simulationism, you seem to be implying that character-immersive play isn't compatible with Narrativism.  

In my experience, character-immersive play is often packed full of meaningful moral choice.  For example, my Water-Uphill campaign was an experiment on my part to promote immersion and to stick to strict simulation.  But the focus and the highlights were all about moral choice.  Character-immersion won't produce self-conscious thinking about what will address the Premise, but it can easily be filled with meaningful moral choice and thus dynamic theme.

[Mike Holmes]

By equating immersionist (more specifically, character immersion) with Simulationism, you seem to be implying that character-immersive play isn't compatible with Narrativism.

No, I am not. Sim and Nar are compatible. It's called Hybrid play. They are two different priorities happening simultaneously. There will be occasions where they are mutually exclusive, but in those cases, you just do one or the other for a moment.

Mike

[John Kim]

By equating immersionist (more specifically, character immersion) with Simulationism, you seem to be implying that character-immersive play isn't compatible with Narrativism.

No, I am not. Sim and Nar are compatible. It's called Hybrid play. They are two different priorities happening simultaneously. There will be occasions where they are mutually exclusive, but in those cases, you just do one or the other for a moment.

I've spent a while pondering what you say, and it seems like a reasonable position, but one I disagree with.  

There are many people who would say that immersive entertainment is inherently cathartic and escapist.  Respected theorists like Berthold Brecht and Roland Barthes hold positions which sound much like yours, applied to theater and novels.  They tend to advocate fiction which challenges the audience rather than carrying the audience in a false reality.  In this view, there is a split between two goals: (1) getting the audience to believe that this is real, and (2) conveying moral meaning.  You can have a hybrid which combines both, but there are trade-offs.  

However, I think that immersion can be a positive part of theme.  Seeing through the character's eyes enables the communication of meaning in ways which cannot be conveyed otherwise.  I'm working on a structuralist sort of approach to describe what I mean, but it's still being worked on.

[Mike Holmes]

They tend to advocate fiction which challenges the audience rather than carrying the audience in a false reality. In this view, there is a split between two goals: (1) getting the audience to believe that this is real, and (2) conveying moral meaning. You can have a hybrid which combines both, but there are trade-offs.

Compatible is the wrong term. Sim and Nar are not always mutually exclusive. They aren't the same thing. And yes, they can, at times conflict (hence the potential for incoherence). But they don't always.

As I've said, when conflict does occur, when there are two decisions and one is Sim and the other is Nar, then you have to choose one that isn't in line with the other priority.

From Ron's POV with groups of decisions being aggregated into instances of play, this instance will still be hybrid overall. As a defining part of the Creative Agenda, it's a coherent style of play.

The problem of incoherence comes along when, allowed to do either at any point, a player is informed that either Sim or Nar alone is alright. In which case, if they play soley that way you have incoherence again.

Or, rather, the player doesn't get that the other requirement exists. That is, if some players are playing Sim/Nar hybrid, for example, and another is playing Nar, because he sees that the Nar part is OK, but doesn't understand that the Sim requirement exists (in this case a low appearance[/] of the Nar priority), then he may make decisions that annoy the other players.

Any clearer?

I would further go so far as to say that, when push comes to shove in the Nar/Sim battle, Sim almost always wins. It's a rare group with a Hybrid agenda that won't put Sim as the higher of the two priorities when there's a potential conflict. Why? Because Sim is not about "adherence to established themes." So, yes, if that's part of the GNS definition then my definition is different (though I could show you how I get from point A to point B). Sim is about eliminating the appearance of certain metagame elements of decision-making.

Thus, when Ron says that you can "accidentally" create theme via Actor stance play, I agree. All this is saying is that there are moments of high congruence between Sim and Nar. And since it is possible to create theme "accidentally" then sticking by the Sim mode, when a Nar-only possibility presents itself as an alternative, is a safer choice. Because it's the only choice of the two with a chance of satisfying both requirements.

Are there Sim-only decisions? Decisions made purely to limit the appearance of unwanted metagame elements, and for no other reason? I suppose there are. But I don't think anyone plays this way (Beeg Horseshoe). That is, if actor stance can get you theme playing "what my character would do", then why not have both?

Now befor MJ gets all over me with the I play Sim and only Sim rap, Consider that "discovery" can be a theme. Basically, Ron has made Narrativism so large that everyone is playing Narrativist or Gamist all the time, IMO. The only time they wouldn't be would be if play was only ever about things so mundane that they couldn't be said to be creating theme by playing "what my character would do." So, uh, if play was all about living the life of a normal guy, who never had anything exciting happen to him in a way that an observer might find emotionally engaging (like a fight), then it would be Sim. But as soon as it's about discovery, or anything else, it's Nar. This coincides with the "Oh, shit, I'm playing Nar" idea.

So, again, I say that this is why I'm trying to get people to see Sim as something different. It's not what you do with power (win tell stories), but the manner in which you do it, such that it doesn't void the sense of immersion.

And again, before anyone can jump on that, the level is simply different for each group and individual as to what sort of thing triggers the problem with the Sim requirement, and in what ammounts. So just because you don't personally have the Sim requirement for deep immersion as it's being described, doesn't mean that there's not some point of plausibility at which you won't balk. Even the post-modern game could be defined as a low level of plausibility.

Am I still spinning?

Mike