In the Group Ownership of Players thread, Valamir expressed his frustration with misinterpretation of his argument, and recommended that the discussion had exceeded the bounds of the original thread, and should be re-cast.

Valamir wrote: Play in character can reveal ALOT about your character. It can reveal alot about your character's desires and personality. It can reveal all manner of important information and can be well appreciated for the skill with which its accomplished.

But it cannot accomplish everything.

I believe that Deep Immersion is inadequate to any CA. There has never been any story ever told that told effectively without some consideration by the teller as to its impact on the audience. The author doesn't write the actions of a character based solely on just what that character knows or would do. Nor does the playwrite, the screenplay writer, or the patriarch telling old family yarns around the table.

The essential part of any good story is effective editing. Knowing what not to relate is as important to the final effect as what is related. There is a level of concious and intentional editing that goes on by every story teller. This skill is particularly important to oral story telling where the speaker doesn't have the luxury of rewrites. He must gauge his audience, ascertain their level of interest, and then selectively edit his story for best effect. It is this skill that seperates good storytellers from poor ones as much as any other talent.

In roleplaying this is also important. What to reveal about your character, and when, is an important choice that must be made by the player on behalf of the character. It cannot be made solely from behind the eyes of the character, because the character himself is not concerned with such things. The player, however, must be. And the only way to accomplish this is by being willing to step out from behind the eyes of the character to ascertain what needs to be done, with the same purposeful intent as an author or playwrite, although not necessarily using the same techniques.

The crafting of a good story requires alot more than simply judging what a single character "would or wouldn't do" based completely and only on what that character "does or doesn't know". It is therefor completely impossible (except for the allowance of the million monkeys banging on a million typewriters) for a good story to be created by remaining 100% immersed at all times. A good story requires time to be spent unimmersed.



So what does it take to use the immersive technique effectively and avoid the pitfalls of Deep Immersion? It takes a willingness to drive with one eye on road and the other in the rear view mirror, so to speak. To be cognizant of the timing and pacing and flow of the game. When one chooses to reveal an aspect about ones character, to do so at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner (and many other similiar concerns).

All of these choices are inherently metagame, even though immersionist practitioners will generally go to great lengths to deny meta game and swear up and down that it should be purged. Yet everytime a player chooses to drop a hint about his character's deep inner nature, that choice...to do it, how to do it, and when to do it is clearly firmly in the realm of metagame.


From there it is simply a question of degree; of overcoming years of habit that have ingrained completely arbitrary and meaningly division about metagame. To force open the eyes of those who swear they hate metagame and demonstrate that they are, in fact, using meta game everytime they play and thus their protestations against it are mere unnecessary hypocrisy.



Which leads to the next question, if people are routinely using metagame in play are their people who really play Deep Immersion without it? Yes, they do. Some do it intentionally. Some do it inadvertantly, and some do it naively.

The inadvertant ones do it because they've been taught that's the way they're "supposed to play". Mike earlier took umbrage at my use of the word "virulent" but I find it eminently appropriate. Anyone who's had to endure criticisms about "not playing right" and been subjected to the many techniques designed to cut off in the bud any notion of play outside the boundaries of ones character knows exactly what I'm talking about. There are few other styles of play as outright aggressive at indoctrinating players into their style as that of Deep Immersionists. Heck, we don't have to look any further than a number of recent threads here on the Forge for proof as to the successfulness and widespreadness of this indoctrination. Threads where new participants encountering notions of Author and Director Stance for the first time express utter astonishment that people actually play that way and it doesn't end in the complete and utter disastor they've been trained to think it would.

There are those who enjoy the sensation of playing in character at all times, but who dislike the uninspiring end result of non-story that it produces. They continue to play this way, however, because they believe for some reason that when it does manage to produce story that that story is somehow more pure and thus more awe inspiring than if the story had been actively sought out. Again I point to recent threads where individuals have suggested that they'd viewed the actively seeking out of story as "cheating". I call this sort of play "naive" because it is naive to think that this story is in any way more "pure" or "better". Even history itself is not produced solely by "staying in character" because in all occassions the actual results of real history are edited down. It is the editing down of the tedious bits that makes stories of war seem exciting. And of course all such telling of history is told with the proper spin of the "victors". So even history is not actually the result of in character cause and effect, but rather in character cause and effect combined with the attentions of an author with a purpose. To think that great stories can be told without addressing them from the perspective of an author with a purpose is, to me, extraordinarly naive. These players are those that Ron refers to as Ouja Board players. They've recognized the need for a concious effort to create story, but they're so thoroughly indoctrinated that they aren't yet willing to do it overtly. And so they try to bring subtle indectable metagame guidance to their roleplaying. It is my firm position that the vast majority of examples that one might produce about "Deeply Immersionist games that successfully produced story" were the result of these ouja board players being willing to leave Deep Immersion long enough to accomplish it.

And finally there are those who truly enjoy just the being in character aspects of play. Whether this is out of a sense of escapism or some transcendent state of conciousness I'll leave to them to describe. Their primary concern is to enjoy the experience of becoming someone else. This is a perfectly understandable joy. I experience it myself. I think all roleplayers who don't spend the preponderance of their time in pawn stance do (although I think their is a huge number of active gamers who principly play in pawn stance). There is nothing wrong AT ALL with taking enjoyment from drifting into a close relationship with ones alter ego.

Where it crosses the line and becomes selfish, however, is when those players are unwilling to do anything else BUT enjoy this relationship, and who are unwilling to sacrifice even a little bit of their enjoyment for other purposes. These players don't care about the story, the other players, or anything else, but their own ability to immerse without interuption. That to me is the veritable definition of selfish behavior.


Now it has been pointed out "what if everyone at the table is enjoying it and doesn't mind that other people are unwilling to make that sacrifice"

Well, as I've said repeatedly, that is the only time when such play is functional. But consider. If this were commonly the case among such groups, (having everyone at the table enjoy this sort of play), why do deep immersionists fight so hard to encourage it?

Why is it so prevailing in texts, why do practitioners go to such great lengths to force every new member of their group to play in this manner? Quite simple. Because they expect the other players at the table to not take any action during play that will impugn their own enjoyment of their immersive behavior. They aren't concerned with whether those players are enjoying themselves or not. They are only concerned with ensuring those other players aren't disrupting their own enjoyment. THAT is selfish behavior with a capital "S".


And contrary to suggestions that have been made that "people don't really play like that"...phooey. I find that next to pure unadulterated pawn stance gamism, it is the most common behavior in roleplaying. It is in my mind one of the key reasons why gaming is still a fringe hobby; because 1) the indoctrination process results in alot of unsatisfied new participants who leave rather than abide by it, 2) and alot of "inadvertant" types who leave as soon as they find some other outlet for adult socialization that doesn't require having to put up with the nonsense, and 3) alot of "naive" types who finally get disillusioned with banging ineffectively on the typewriter and seek other outlets (like writing) for their creativity.



So yes. I stand firm behind my assessment of Immersion as a wonderful technique when used in moderation and Deep Immersion as a selfish technique whose perpetuation has done horrendous damage to this hobby both internally and with our ability to grow. And I find the arguements above to be entirely independent of CA.

Really? Because I can't understand how your arguments even apply once you've stepped out of a Narrative creative agenda.

All your arguments seem to emerge from a desire to tell a good story. I totally see why that would be important in a Narrativist game, but I don't understand why you think it applies to Gamist and Simulationist play.

Let's posit a group of players, all in Deep Immersion play, with a conscious, shared Simulationist agenda. What they enjoy, what they want, is to experience a common world of imagination through the vehicle of the game.

Suppose they don't tell any story that makes the least little lick of sense or reveals anything about the human condition. But at the end of the session they've all felt, thought and practically tasted what it is like to be their characters and to live in the game setting.

If that's what they wanted, why should it matter that the story wasn't any good?

Hi Tony,

Remember that "story" may be created through any Creative Agenda. It is not the exclusive province of Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the cogent summary of your position. I've wanted to get in on this argument for some time, but haven't been able to find a good entry point until now. I think you are attaching too much significance to the importance of the characters' actions on the overall fun of the game. In my experience, games can often survive and even prosper despite spectacularly-bad stories because of the strength of the identification between the players and their characters. What this identification-effect gives you, as a designer, is an awful lot of leeway in game designs. You can do things that are a mixture of fun and tedium, and use the character-identification effect as a way of ameliorating the tedium.

For example, I ran a game called Aquinan angels, in which the point was to get into a mental state that approximated St. Aquinas's theories on angelic and demonic nature. He thought that angels were given, at the moment of their creation, a complete vision of the future of the universe and that they chose to fall or stay faithful to God in that instant. Afterwards, free will is meaningless to an angel or demon, because it already knows everything that will happen and has made its choice -- there's simply not any new information that can cause it to change its mind. So, I ran the game in two sessions. In the first session, we players worked out the PCs, the NPCs, and everything that would happen in the second session. In the second session, we played it out, using the assumption that all of the PCs knew everything we had decided upon in the first session. As I understand you, there wasn't anything to do in the second session except for character identification play -- ie, immersion.

I'm not 100% sure whether you would call this deep immersion or not. I think it qualifies, because no one had any obligation to do any non-character stuff during play. We all talked about what happened and how we responded emotionally afterwards, but not at all during the actual play. This leads to my second criticism: at the game table, during play, is not the only time in which the players are active, and it's easy and productive to re-arrange the duties of the game to move the necessary meta stuff into or out of the play session. An informal rule like "worlbuilding and scenario design on the email mailing list, the actual action in play, and analysis and commentary during the post-game dinner" can work well.

========================
This is unrelated to the main subject of the discussion, hence the separate section:

Well, as I've said repeatedly, that is the only time when such play is functional. But consider. If this were commonly the case among such groups, (having everyone at the table enjoy this sort of play), why do deep immersionists fight so hard to encourage it?

Ron: I've used the word "Story" in a very fuzzy way. I apologize.

Is there a more precise Forge-definition of it that I could use? This would probably both help smooth communication and help me know what I'm talking about. Or is it an undefined term, best avoided in favor of better understood words?

Hi Tony,

No apologies necessary. My point is that Ralph is talking about "story stuff," yes, but that doesn't limit his points to Narrativist play. I think his points apply to any sort of role-playing in which "story-stuff" is a big deal.

As for what that is, check out the section about Sir Gerrik and what's-her-name in the Narrativism essay. That section tries to illustrate that "story" is internally defined, in terms of the fictional content, not at all by whatever procedures or desires were employed in producing it.

Best,
Ron

Ah... I think I see (after a closer, or rather N+1-th reading of the relevant essay). All of the creative agendas are telling stories. I mis-stated myself when I claimed that Ralphs concern was Narrativist simply because he was interested in telling stories.

However, at the same time, Ralph seems to be arguing that a story cannot arise from the exploration of the common dream without a conscious effort to create story (presumably above and beyond the effort of exploration).

Which almost begs the question of what he thinks about stories that are driven by commonly accepted genre tropes that are built into the motivations of the characters. So, the question having been begged...

Hey, Ralph, if a player creates a character with the intent of having their motives align with genre tropes, but then (after character creation) plays exclusively through those motives... are they Deep Immersionist by your definition?

I agree with Ralph's position strongly. I think the main point of focus in his statements should be "metagame" rather than "story" (which appears to be mucking up the works with multiple meanings and confounding with Narrativism).

What is being said is that "Deep Immersion" ie: "being the character" is simply not as possible as its advocates would like to proclaim, nor that metagame is the enemy to be avoided at all costs (or that it even CAN be avoided, for that matter).

The simple truth is that at any given moment, whether you realize it or not, part of your brain is working away on the fact that this is a game and you are playing a character with a group of friends or acquaintances, who are also not who they are pretending to be. There's no possible way around this, because the fact is you aren't your character, you know you're playing a game, and those concerns will express themselves in your judgement patterns in play. Hence, while you may be "playing your character" you can not "be your character" in any real sense.

Because of these mental processes going on in the background, and their effects upon your judgements, ultimately, you may decide something is "in character" but that's the point: no one ever thinks in real life, "Is that in character for me?" or even processes that sort of statement or idea subconsciously, because we aren't characters to ourselves, we're "us" and we just behave as "me."

If we do something we don't think fits with our percieved personality or previous decisions, we'll say to ourselves, "That was stupid of me" rather than "Gee, that was out of character for this persona." Nor will thoughts of a GM and the other participants judging the "goof" in our theatrical aerobics accompany such a self-judgement.

Despite comparisons that can be made which I will admit to, the most important difference is deeper than even the level of self-judgement: identity. We do not seperate the "I" of ourselves from ourselves when we do the above, whereas with a character we seperate the fictional self from the real self portraying that self, and our behavior in play reflects on us as a person rather than the character as a person ("Boy, Bradd goofed up playing Thorvald tonight" vs. "Boy, Thorvald goofed up playing himself tonight"). That is, simply, no one thinks they are portraying themselves in real life.

To return to the subject of games, oftentimes tracing the thought-path you took to get to your decision during a game, no matter how immersed you are, will reveal all sorts of "metagame" thoughts -- "Would I say this? Should I reveal this now? I'll just let Bob say his stuff first." etc. for reasons other than "It's what my character would do." And note, I'm using "I" because that's exactly how we think as gamers -- "Should I, the player of this character, reveal this part of my character now?"

So, when the Deep Immersionist says, "You have to be your character and metagame is a filthy abomination**" they're deluding themselves: metagame decisions happen regardless of your desires to "be the character." The simple fact that you as a player know it's a game "taints" the "pure" experience proselytized by the Deep Immersion argument.

** BTW, that is a directly quoted adjective from an advocate of Deep Immersionism who resides on a different game design list; not every DI believer is so cognizant of their preference or attempts, most are just well-trained by tradition.

In fact, for most gamers, Immersion isn't really about "being the character" but trying to ignore the metagame in one's character decisions -- which equates to "being the character" functionally, through discarding all irrelevant non-character knowledge, data, and reactions. It is possible to play Deep Immersionist Pawn stance (the question being "What would this character do?"), which is functionally (and perceptually) no different from Deep Immersionist Actor stance (the question being "How can I behave most like this character?").

Now, Ralph is not saying that gamers shouldn't or can't play their character, only that pursuit of the "pure form" thereof is a wumpus hunt, that gamers need to realize that the fact it is a game is inescapable, and embrace that fact, rather than reject it or try to find ways around it in an attempt to please the wumpus.

And if you say, "Yeah but...[excuse]" you're fooling yourself, because nobody can do it. Nobody. Not even million-dollar actors who stay "in character" for shoots. Even they are influenced by the fact that they know 1) this is a persona, 2) this is a movie. To cross the line is to blur the distinction between reality and fantasy.

Hence, there is one way around this problem of the metagame: you can brainwash yourself so thoroughly that you actually believe you are the character -- really, truly are the character, truly and deeply immerse into the character and actually think as them (not just "like" them) -- but note that's called "mental illness" and I doubt anyone is so committed to gaming that they would put themselves in the psych ward just to achieve this.

However, I note that in many cases of Deep Immersionist texts and arguments, this unintentionally ends up being the only possible 100% successful method of avoiding any hint of the "blasphemy" of metagame, because the wumpus cannot be fully satisfied or caught any other way.

Unless you really are your character (and thus insane), metagame thinking cannot be avoided, only minimalized, and you can always be accused of it, whether you are or not. The only rational response to this is to accept that the wumpus hunt cannot be concluded successfully, the wumpus cannot be caught, because it doesn't exist, and deal with the problem as it stands: Since metagame cannot be avoided, it has to be worked with.

Its proponents might not put it that way, might even ignore the fact that this is the logical conclusion of the only real solution to their arguments, but that's where it ends up.

The Deep Immersionist argument (or I should say "tradition") ignores the fact that there's a cliff to the east -- that you can't just "go east" without going off the deep end. The mature view is to accept that there's a cliff (it's a game, and you can't escape that fact), and work with it, rather than ignore it and pretend it isn't there, even though everyone knows it is and no one (even hard core DI believers) will jump. The point is that they still push for moving east, try to continue east, despite the damn cliff.

Imagine:
"To get there you need to keep going east."
"But there's a cliff to the east."
"Just keep going east."
"Do I climb down the cliff?"
"Just keep going east!"
"What about the cliff?"
"GO EAST!"
"Cliff?"
"Lalalalala...I don't hear you! Just go east!"

Now, don't get hung up on imagery: the "cliff" is a fact (that this is a game), beyond which one would have to be insane to go, "beyond the cliff" is "being the character" without external reference to the reality of the situation (that it is a game or movie).

Obviously, no one ever walks over the cliff, no one is deluded enough, even advocates of Deep Immersion recognize it is there, though they refuse to verbalize it, and thus they still push everyone to the cliff with their arguments and proclaim they have to keep going even though there's nowhere to go. They're trying to ignore the cliff rather than work with the fact that a cliff exists.

For example, no one answers a call from their wife during a game with "I don't know who you are! How did you get this number?" Especially if it's to say that their child is in the hospital. No, they cruise, right then -- outside reality intrudes.

Same situation if a person is playing a heartless character who comes across a situation familiar to and disturbing to the player. The player's own mental state and reactions will influence the portrayal of the character -- in fact, there are many places that people will not go with characters, even in service to Deep Immersion, because those places are too real to the player.

All this speaks to Neel's Aquinian Angels game: Metagame did influence play! The fact that it was all set-up beforehand definitely influenced the portrayal of characters in the game. I'd put money on players going through a thought process during play that boiled down would be expressed as, "Knowing what I know about the construction of this game, its goals and limits, what should I have my character do NOW?"

Metagame inescapably influences your decisions.
The choice now is how to make that work for you as a group, given your goals of play, and to stop treating "ignoring the metagame" as a quest to be embraced or even attempted, because of its foolhardy nature.

Now, it also seems to me a lot of the Finnish and Nordic LARPing manifestos are centered around the Deep Immersion idea.

In fact, I put forth that they aren't talking about RPing at all, but their drive is towards change to a pretty standard, traditional (improv) theater method and goals (Dogma '99 comes to mind immediately as the poster child for this "so, shouldn't we just join a theater group instead?" or "let's do theater, but not call it theater!" direction). Though, in all honesty, it isn't theater. It isn't even remotely as mature a form of expression as theater. It's reinventing theater all over from the ground up, ignoring audience and theme in pursuit of "experience" and "escape...but with rules."

And what it usually boils down to, why I call it immature in development, is that not only is it delusional as to the nature of the activity, but it's another wumpus hunt. "Just be your character and don't worry about anyone else" is like telling a pre-amputee not to think about the pain of the removal, that the pain doesn't exist, or can be ignored away. Bull-honkey, it's going to hurt. The pain will exist. It's how you deal with that pain that's going to matter -- and "ignoring it" isn't going to be an option because that won't make the pain go away or help you really deal with it.

"This is going to hurt. Have a shot of this. Clench your teeth on this. Think about something else to distract yourself. That will help blunt the pain," is actually useful advice, and realistic.

So, as I said above, metagame -- and especially even social/life concerns of the actual player -- intrudes inescapably. Embrace it, use it, refine it to produce better player and enhance Immersion with new techniques that take it into account, rather than simply trying to "ignore" it as tradition would have, and proclaims is not only possible, but the goal.

So let me check that I understand. You (Grey) feel that what Ralph is saying is that Deep Immersion itself is impossible, but that the belief in it is pernicious. Yes?

That's a good summation of my overall position, yes.

greyorm wrote: What is being said is that "Deep Immersion" ie: "being the character" is simply not as possible as its advocates would like to proclaim, nor that metagame is the enemy to be avoided at all costs (or that it even CAN be avoided, for that matter).

[...]

Now, Ralph is not saying that gamers shouldn't or can't play their character, only that pursuit of the "pure form" thereof is a wumpus hunt, that gamers need to realize that the fact it is a game is inescapable, and embrace that fact, rather than reject it or try to find ways around it in an attempt to please the wumpus.

Here's the problem:
Metagame is unavoidable.
The best wumpus hunters try to do it anyways.

That's like spending your life trying to learn how to fly like Superman when you know it's impossible. No matter how many times you jump off your roof, you aren't going to miss the ground...but you do it anyways. What's the point?

A realistic goal that can actually be attained should be the focus of the texts, not an unrealistic goal that cannot be attained. DI texts state something to the effect of the greatness of seperation of character and game, and the greater the seperation, the better. At no point is it ever said that it's "OK" to have metagame influences, as the text treats them as the enemy to be avoided.

They can't be avoided, and when they're run into, they cause problems for the players attempting to avoid them. Complex rules are thereafter writ for avoiding the unavoidable (either merely delaying the inevitable, or tangling up normal game processes so much that it becomes even more central to the players worrying about avoiding it), rather than rules that take into account running into them.

Current texts read more like the following:
"Here's how to avoid the enemy."
"What happens when we encounter them?"
"Here's more rules to help you avoid them."
"Yes, but what happens when..."

If the goal is unattainable, why is it the goal? Shouldn't the goal be a more realistic one, rather than a fanciful (and impossible) ideal? Wouldn't it be more productive to have a realistic goal that really can be attained and really can be supported by rules and behaviors?

I don't know that "fanciful" and "impossible ideal" are quite the terms I'd bring to the table. I get more mental mileage out of the distinction between bounded and unbounded goals.

A bounded goal is something that you are meant to reach. You intend to derive satisfaction from the end product of having reached it. If you don't reach it then your efforts were wasted.

An unbounded goal is something that you don't really care whether you reach. You intend to derive satisfaction from the process of striving toward it. If you reach it then you can either find another activity or find another, more distant, goal to continue the satisfying process.

I think it is natural that if one pursues an unbounded goal believing that it is bounded, one is likely to be dissatisfied. Nobody seems inclined to argue that point :-)

Grey, are you confused about why people would consciously pursue an unbounded goal? Or are you referring to something else?

There's kind of a lot of different points flying around here, and it seems to me that some of them are being taken rather too far. In particular, I'm rather surprised about this argument that unattainable ideals are worthless, which put that way seems like a cynic's approach -- something I do not associate with Rev. Daegmorgan. I also think the connection being drawn to what theater is or is not is extremely dubious: one only has to read people like Grotowski and Artaud to see that unattainable ideals and radical separations among entities and whatnot are or can be very much part of theater. So what's at stake here?

1. Absolute immersion is impossible
Yes, this seems to me accurate. Barring some sort of trance-state, something I have never seen proposed on any side of this debate, pure immersion is quite impossible. And certainly if you really wanted to achieve it, you would have to discard physical barriers such as dice, tables, pencils, rulebooks, and whatnot. If theater folks have learned one thing about "immersion", it's that it is not a simply mental thing, but one dependent upon both physical and mental cues (at the least).

2. Metagame is unavoidable
This seems a necessary corollary. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to celebrate it, however.

3. Why bother trying to achieve absolute immersion without metagame?
This does not follow at all. Just because one cannot achieve the goal does not make it an unworthy ideal. It's like being in favor of world peace, and actually putting money and time on the line for it. Sure, you know there will never be world peace, but does that mean what you're doing is worthless or silly? This is an exaggerated argument.

4. Immersion is not necessarily a value
This is the value of argument #3, recast. If absolute immersion without metagame is practically impossible, that does not make it worthless as a goal. On the other hand it does not ipso facto make it a worthy goal: unlike world peace, which I think few people are deeply against, this immersionist ideal is not an ideal for everyone, and nothing in its formulation entails that it must be so. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde (I forget where), "The fact that a man dies for a cause does not make it worth dying for."

5. Immersionists fight hard for their ideal
Here Neel and Ralph are at cross-purposes, and I think they're both right. On the one hand, as Neel points out, there is no reason they should not fight for it. To suggest that they do so because they never achieve their bounded goals (limited immersion) is to impute bad faith, which doesn't seem called-for here. But on the other hand, Ralph has a point: if immersion were as "normal" or "natural" or "usual" as immersionists like to claim, and if indeed it were as achievable as they often claim, there would be no need to advocate for it so strenuously. There must be some threat, some inability, some lack that they struggle against here. That may not be within their own play -- they may feel they have achieved total immersion and indeed usually do -- but there must be some sense in which they are defending "real gaming" from a perceived threat of anti-immersion or whatever. Why? Ralph I think reads this right: because immersion isn't particularly common, either as a method or an ideal, so by fighting for it as "normal" and deriding all else as "abomination" (to quote a previous poster) they claim that actually it is common and that others are simply bad gamers not to notice this.

So I don't see us all particularly at cross-purposes. What remains, to my mind, is a pitch for immersion as a legitimate unbounded goal, as well as some discussion of its implicit bounded goals.

clehrich wrote: 1. Absolute immersion is impossible
Yes, this seems to me accurate. Barring some sort of trance-state, something I have never seen proposed on any side of this debate, pure immersion is quite impossible. And certainly if you really wanted to achieve it, you would have to discard physical barriers such as dice, tables, pencils, rulebooks, and whatnot.

I'd like to take a moment to thank Chris for (at least to my mind) nicely categorizing the things under discussion. I will devote myself briefly to point #5.

It seems a bit strange to imply that vocal popular support is a sign of a flawed, rather than simply a popular, point of view.

I'm torn. I agree that I've met with people who seem emotionally vested in suppressing any non-immersionist roleplay. And subjectively, hoo boy do they stick out in my memory.

But objectively, I don't know that I've seen a lot of these people. I see many more who are advocating for immersion for the two reasons we all advocate for our own styles: (1) They think other people will enjoy them, and (2) There is a practical benefit for them to having a group that consistently pursues and understands the same techniques.

TonyLB wrote: Grey, are you confused about why people would consciously pursue an unbounded goal? Or are you referring to something else?

It's like being in favor of world peace, and actually putting money and time on the line for it. Sure, you know there will never be world peace, but does that mean what you're doing is worthless or silly? This is an exaggerated argument.

greyorm wrote:
You can minimize metagame.
You can enhance characterization.
You can't avoid metagame.
So why do so many rules try to do the last one, rather than the first two? It's incoherent design.

Halzebier wrote: (Could you give examples? It's certainly possible that I have big holes in my collection or a spotty memory, especially regarding a notion which I would dismiss anyway.)

Describing some of a character's actions in third person mode, asking the GM to describe a part of the scenery in more detail and so on are all necessary metagaming activities. I doubt this is refuted by anyone.

Some RPGs merely condemn metagaming of the sort which can, in fact, be avoided (e.g. acting on OOC knowledge, whether to your character's advantage or to 'improve' the overall ~story).

These RPGs may be at fault for claiming theirs is the One True Way (TM), but they are not automatically incoherent.

I've been sort of following this conversation sorta kinda and I'm a little puzzled by the whole thing.

I'd experienced really deep immersion when watching movies or reading books and ha completely failed to immerse at all with RPG characters I had created. However metagame may or may not break immersion, I cannot think that it is anything more that the experience I had mentioned where I am a passive obverer outside of the character with absolutely no control since they aren't even roleplaying.

This makes me think there's something else going on here and that worrying about metagame and its effect on immersion is polishing the brass on the Titanic as it goes down.

Is there an effect? Possibly, but I think metagame elements are less detrimental to immersion than other things. But that might be just my experience.

I dont see why awareness of metagame aspects should get in the way of truely deep immersion in character-my own experience has been that the two are by no means mutually exclusive.
The best example of immersion in character I have experienced was when I was a player in a game of Call of Cthulhu where I had previously GMd the very same adventure for someone else a year previous. I knew all the secrets that needed to be uncovered, the nature of the threat involved, the course of events as they would unfold, character motivations of NPCs etc and yet had the most immersive experience in rpg of my life-the character seemed to 'come alive' for me, and I found myself acting in ways I would never have expected. It changed the course of that characters development from then on, and it became the fullest and most rewarding character I have ever played.
My own experience with acting (and most importantly improvisation and mask work) suggests that it is actually often more powerfull for character immersion to know the general direction everything is going in the game. I would agree with neelk's comments earlier regarding his game of Aquinan angels that such an understanding of plot can help immersion rather than hinder it.
I suspect that gamers often confuse immersion with mystery, and that their goals are actually not to explore the character or enable it to come alive, but to explore the narrative from a viewpoint of 'discovering' its direction much like reading a book for the first time. They believe that taking an actor stance will heighten this and is 'good play' without actually understanding it. Of course such play is logical in that most people are 'readers' not 'writers' and thats the paradigm they usually come from, but they also forget that re-reading a book is often just as enjoyable-their reader stance has changed from one of seeing a mystery unfold to one of focusing on deeper aspects of the text. I suspect the same dynamics can work very nicely in rpgs-as neelk suggested, metagame knowledge 'frees' the player to immerse themselves instead of obstructing it.
Most of what I have seen as 'immersive' character based play is not that at all-rather it is a weak attempt at 'acting' with very little understanding of what this actually entails-it becomes a forced, concious effort and in the end the reverse of what was intended. A similar dynamic happens when inexperienced actors attempt to take on board Stanislavsky's techniques-they spend a lot of energy trying to 'force' a character, defining its shape in advance of performance to an extreme degree and in doing so loose the essential spirit of the character, which if they opened themselves up to it they would find transforming in their performance. The 'trick' is NOT to plan it all out rationally, but to let the subconcious discover the archetyepal level of identification needed to allow the character to become a 'mask' that almost seems to 'possess' the actor. A sad scene would then make the actor cry not because they have rationalised that they must make themselves do so then, but because they have identified with the scenes sadness deeply.
Perhaps in the end the 'mystery' approach is so ingrained in players used to the old gm-player relationship where the gm has all the information and they then uncover it that for many it may not be possible to step outside of the paradigm and see that many of the goals they expouse in playing may be better achieved by actually knowing many of the metagame elements in advance, or by breaking down the old gm-player relationship entirely and playing gmless games.
So far I have found few players willing to move into gmless styles with advance metagame knowledge, so I would be very interested to know if anyone has found such games to be more or less immersive that the old style.

Jack and Peter are both correct. Metagame doesn't really affect Immersion...worrying about it really is polishing the brass on a sinking ship.

This is a big part of the problem with the Deep Immersionist party line; the party-line says that metagame is a monstrosity, and any use of or reference to it in play is "cheating" of the highest order, a blasphemous sin, and it must be purged from rules and player alike.

(This is exactly what Ralph is talking about in his post, in fact.)

Yet we know through experience and logic that the DI claims, and the worries and problems they are ultimately based upon, are foundless.

I don't really have much more to add.

If that's the case then I think you might want to figure out a way of describing that party line as something other than "Deep Immersion".

After all, it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with Immersion, deep or otherwise. It has to do with an attitude toward metagaming. The fact that you have encountered this attitude in people who also happen to practice the technique of Immersion is only confusing the issue for everyone.

TonyLB wrote: After all, it doesn't sound like it has anything to do with Immersion, deep or otherwise. It has to do with an attitude toward metagaming. The fact that you have encountered this attitude in people who also happen to practice the technique of Immersion is only confusing the issue for everyone.

So why not criticize the people instead of the entirely innocent technique whose name they are besmirching?

greyorm wrote: Metagame doesn't really affect Immersion...worrying about it really is polishing the brass on a sinking ship.

greyorm wrote: Off the top of my head, D&D 3rd Edition comes to mind, which has a section devoted to "metagame thinking" and why it's the devil's spawn. Something I find vastly ironic, given how bloody Gamist D&D is, and how it encourages a Pawn stance otherwise.

D&D 3e wrote: Metagame Thinking
"I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap,' a player says to the others, "because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn't deactivate somehow." That's an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their characters' actions on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game, they're using metagame thinking. This should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real roleplaying and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

However, in most of the texts, it isn't what they say, it's what they don't say that's the problem. Spelled out like I've done above, yeah, it's a looney notion you'd dismiss out-of-hand upon reading; but it isn't that simple: there's no text that proclaims what I've written above. It's "proclaimed" by what the text leaves out, what it doesn't say, and by what it rewards and encourages.

Describing some of a character's actions in third person mode, asking the GM to describe a part of the scenery in more detail and so on are all necessary metagaming activities. I doubt this is refuted by anyone.

Then you'd be surprised at the number of groups where such behaviors are considered out-of-place, even to the point where players who desire more information about the environment are forced to ask or describe in first person ("I examine the rosebeds, blah, blah, blah") or be considered to have "failed" the group dynamic.

For example, can you really avoid acting on OOC knowledge? Not really. You can limit yourself, but OOC knowledge is going to creep in. That such an event is commonly considered by tradition to be a cardinal sin highlights the very problem I'm talking about.

Halzebier wrote:

If you don't know about it, the in-game revelation (when it does happen) will be surprising not just to your character, but also to you. This (a) intensifies the emotional impact of the revelation on the player in a visceral sense and (b) prevents a disjunction from your character (e.g., the character is surprised and you are not).

Peter Hollinghurst wrote: Halzebier wrote:

If you don't know about it, the in-game revelation (when it does happen) will be surprising not just to your character, but also to you. This (a) intensifies the emotional impact of the revelation on the player in a visceral sense and (b) prevents a disjunction from your character (e.g., the character is surprised and you are not).

Though this sounds perfectly logical, my own experience suggests that the inverse-that if you DO know about it (have metagame knowledge) you will not or cannot be 'suprised' by an in-game revelation is a fallacy.

My point is this-even when people claim they are playing deep immersion they are generally not. They are taking on an enforced 'actor stance' in a very considered manner where they control the character according to a pre-defined set of goals and stats.

To make matters worse for immersion claims, most of this activity centers around the continued survival of the character for the majority of players so assumptions that will serve to achieve this are subtly incorporated into the character they play (generally when they create it).

Hal, I'm not sure where you're misreading me, specifically, but it's obvious you're taking a couple of points and pinning them to me when I'm not advocating them. I'll go over a couple of these here in hopes of clearing this up.

Not everyone may have to avoid metagame to get immersed (I pointed out as much earlier), but it is a concern for some...Please do not dismiss the notion out of hand.

You obviously have had bad experiences with immersionists, but couldn't it be the fault of the people involved, rather than that of the technique itself?

a) This section does not condem metagaming as you seem to use it. Instead, it defines the term in a much narrower sense and gives an example to illustrate what is meant.

b) The section's tone rings of the One True Way.

I think that the concern raised here is entirely valid. It's not a concern for everyone or every game, but it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand: The behaviour described interferes with a valid style of play and the rules suggest how to approach it (though 'discourage' is not very specific).

Are you sure you are not channeling CRPGs here?

Note that the "polishing" quote was not mine, but Jack Spencer's[.]

Good deal, me too.

I do agree we should stop before we're at each other's throats then, and Dav Harnish starts taking bets on who bleeds the most! Heh.

Regardless, I can't continue the discussion at large, as I will shortly be out of town for a week. I think I've said everything I wanted to on the subject anyways, and if anyone has any questions about my views on DI, they can PM me and I'll get in touch after I get back.

Thanks for the discussion, Hal!

OK, I've basically missed this thread. I wanted to add in a few comments about immersion in published works. It seems to me that published works vary quite a bit in terms of what sort of meta-game behavior they encourage or discourage. For example, many games have meta-game mechanics like Torg's Drama Deck or Buffy's Drama Points. Now, these are still on the immersive side of things compared to Universalis -- but I don't feel that there is a unified "party line" which all games subscribe to.

As for D&D, it's true that it doesn't have any explicit metagame mechanics, and it tends towards the more immersive. Here is the advice which it gives in the DMG (page 13),

Metagame Thinking
"I figure there'll be a lever on the other side of the pit that deactivates the trap," a player says to the others, "because the DM would never create a trap that we couldn't deactivate somehow." That's an example of metagame thinking. Any time the players base their character's action on logic that depends on the fact that they're playing a game, they're using metagame thinking. This should always be discouraged, because it detracts from real role-playing and spoils the suspension of disbelief.

Surprise your players by foiling metagame thinking. Suppose there is a lever on the other side of the pit, for example, but it's rusted and useless. Keep your players on their toes, and don't let them second-guess you. Tell them to think in terms of the game world, not in terms of you as the DM.

Jokes and Off-Topic Discussion: There are always funny things to be said, movie quotes, good gossip, and other conversation that crop up during the game, whether they're inspired by what's going on in the session or completely extraneous. Decide for yourself (and as a group) how much is too much. Remember that this is a game and people are there to have fun, yet at the same time keep the focus on the actions of the characters so the whole playing session doesn't pass in idle chat.

The Players' Likes and Dislikes: Some groups hate political intrigue and avoid or ignore it in favor of going down into the dungeon. Other groups are more likely to run from a serious combat challenge. Some groups like adventures with mind flayers and psionics. Some don't. Because of this, you're the best judge, if you're aware of what the group likes and what entices them, whether they will like and partake in a particular encounter or adventure.

I'm not sure John.

Those second two quotes from the DMG don't sound very convincing to me. The first one does at least suggest that some break from immersion might be ok, but commenting on regulating the level of jokes and banter at the table hardly qualifies as metagame promoting. In fact, its exactly that sort of metagame that most immersionists I know hate the most. I don't find it encouraging that the one example you put forward from the book that involves non immersed elements, is something that is often disparaged by immersionists and non immersionist alike. At worst its reinforcing a bad stereotype of what non immersed play looks like.

The last quote doesn't seem to have anything to do with immersion or metagame at all. Its simply instructions to the GM to take into account player likes and dislikes when designing a scenario. Not sure how you feel this applies to actual play.


As for Puppetland...I don't know that that's a fair comparison at all really. talking in character may be correlated with deeply immersive play but it is hardly causal or symptomatic. One can talk in first person with almost 0 immersion. And one can be fairly deeply immersed and speak in the third person. So I don't see where one can say that Puppetland promotes deep immersion just because it requires speaking in the first person. That seems more like a mechanical gimmick than anything else to me.

Now that said, I've read, but not played Puppetland, so I can't really say what sort of play is actually promoted.

Valamir wrote: Those second two quotes from the DMG don't sound very convincing to me. The first one does at least suggest that some break from immersion might be ok, but commenting on regulating the level of jokes and banter at the table hardly qualifies as metagame promoting. In fact, its exactly that sort of metagame that most immersionists I know hate the most.

Valamir wrote: As for Puppetland...I don't know that that's a fair comparison at all really. talking in character may be correlated with deeply immersive play but it is hardly causal or symptomatic. One can talk in first person with almost 0 immersion. And one can be fairly deeply immersed and speak in the third person. So I don't see where one can say that Puppetland promotes deep immersion just because it requires speaking in the first person.

John Kim wrote:
The thing is, this isn't an example I chose. This is the one book which you cited

So, this is suggesting that something which immersionists hate the most (i.e. banter) is OK.

Let's be clear here -- first person rather than third person is irrelevant. The issue is that Puppetland doesn't allow any Out-of-Character talk at all. Players are not allowed to talk to each other OOC. The rule is: if you say it, your character says it. So it has a complete ban on any meta-game communication by players. This seems much more significant than the DMG's advise against metagame thinking.

Since Puppetland is one of my favorite RPGs and one that I have run several times, I believe that I can speak to this issue somewhat. From my experience, Ralph is correct. The prohibition on OOC communication does not necessarily require immersion. In fact, the rules pretty much expect Author Stance from the players. Remember Rule #3: "The tale grows in the telling and is told to one not present." The players are supposed to be playing to an imaginary audience (which, I think we all acknowledge, is actually themselves). In fact, the tricky part of Puppetland is the ability to do this without overt OOC communication. (Aside: this is why the one-hour time limit is such a blessing. Puppetland can be hard work.)

So I don't think that Puppetland can truly be cited as an RPG that demands Deep Immersion, as the text itself requires player engagement on the Authorial level.

OK, we seem to be miscommunicating. Here is what greyorm wrote concerning D&D:

greyorm wrote:

Halzebier wrote:

greyorm wrote: You can minimize metagame.
You can enhance characterization.
You can't avoid metagame.
So why do so many rules try to do the last one, rather than the first two? It's incoherent design.

While your first three points are true, I don't really see any RPGs advocating that one should avoid metagame in general.

(Could you give examples? It's certainly possible that I have big holes in my collection or a spotty memory, especially regarding a notion which I would dismiss anyway.)

Off the top of my head, D&D 3rd Edition comes to mind, which has a section devoted to "metagame thinking" and why it's the devil's spawn.

two quick comments, here:

1. John, you realize that Ralph and Raven are two different people, right? I'm not trying to be snarky, but you're saying Ralph is hypocritical for not applying what Raven said about D&D3e to Puppetland.

2. I've only read Puppetland, never played it, but I didn't recall the rule being cited, so I went back to look. you *can* speak OOC, in two circumstances:

A. when you stand up, which signals you are not speaking as an actor but as just one of the people in the room. these OOC comments are not part of the events of play.

B. when you stand up and take the Puppet Master aside for a whispered conversation. none of this conversation becomes a part of play until you sit back down and speak in character.

looking at the Puppetland rules again, it seems to me that the rules about speaking are meant less as a tool for immersion and more as a mechanic for determining what happens. in other words, the point is not that you are talking like a puppet, but that you can't make your puppet do things except by speaking as the puppet. you can't say "I open the door", you must say "This doorknob feels cold, but at least the door is unlocked and swinging open easily!"

the text f the game makes it very clear that the players are "immersing" in the story as a whole, not as individual characters:

Puppetland wrote:
To help this process work, imagine that somewhere, someone is "reading" everything that the actors and the puppet master say, verbatim. This someone is expecting to read a story, told like a story, with appropriate dialogue and description. As a rule of the game, you must endeavor to make every spoken word sound like part of a story rather than an out-of-game conversation between a bunch of people at a table.

What would be these metagame mechanics that get so badly treated and wrongfully accused to hurt immersion?

I would especially ask for those to be used during play, because some meta talk is surely needed to start a game and to bring everyone on the same page to start the game.

The only mechanic I can think of and use is a fatepoint system to compensate for the increased lethality in my games to what the players are used to:
The gamists for more deadly resolutions, the sims due to a higher density of potentially dangerous scenes.

Then there is to recognize that there have to be some compromises to reflect that roleplaying is a social group event. A little bit less extreme characters on one side and a little bit more tolerance on the other keeps the group together and every one involved.

What are your examples?

talysman wrote: this seems to set Puppetland outside of the "Deep Immersion" category, as defined by Ralph.

So rather than my examples, let's go back to the claim. Ralph, what are games inside the "Deep Immersion" category?

I am seeing two positions in this debate.

On the one hand, I have at times talked about "immersive play" as a functional style. In these cases, you are quick to contradict me that you aren't talking about just immersion but rather about "Deep Immersion" which is a special and extreme case.

On the other hand, when I ask for examples of this, you say that Deep Immersion is a pervasive technique which is assumed throughout nearly all published games.

So if by "Deep Immersion" you mean the sort of immersion which is common throughout the hobby, then I understand what it is -- but I disagree that it is inherently selfish and/or dysfunctional. Now, I whole-hearted agree that it is not the "One True Way", and I encourage games which try new approaches. I also agree that it will mean that the Shared Play is not as well-structured or satisfying when regarded as a story. But that isn't the be-all, end-all of play. i.e. The role-playing session which is the most fun isn't necessarily the one whose Shared Play makes the best story.

If Deep Immersion is a technique then surely it can be described in terms of what you do in order to use it, not what you have to think.

Is it a technique, or an attitude?

And please don't say "both". Even if you're railing against the combination of a technique and an attitude, and how they reinforce each other, let's give them separate names to clarify the discussion.

Well Tony, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you, because it very much is both.

Immersion is a play technique, I think at this point we all have a reasonable grasp on the sorts of in game activities immersion involves.

The "Deep" part is very much an attitude. That attitude being that Immersion is THE technique. That it is the superior and preferred technique. That it represents "real" roleplaying and that all players should endeavor to remain immersed as much as possible because not being immersed is bad.

Metagame enters into the equation because of the common (and IMO erroneous) assumption that metagame interferes with ones ability to immerse.

For a Deep Immersionist anything that interferes (or is percieved to potentially interfere) with immersion is to be avoided.



Now John, I know you'd very much like to see a mainstream example of a Deep Immersionist manifesto, and in the absence of such are inclined to dismiss Deep Immersion as being a non existant straw man. But such a manifesto is not necessary.

All that is necessary is to show two things:

1) The sentiment that being immersed is better than not being immersed.
2) The sentiment that metagame interferes with immersion and thus should be avoided.

You don't need wild eyed fanatical manifestos in order to arrive at the Oz-like destination of Deep Immersion from there. You merely have to follow the yellow brick road of the above two sentiments and you'll be on your way to Emerald City.

If we accept that #1 is true than the "best" way to play is to maximize immersion and minimize non immersion.

If we accept that #2 is true than the "best" way to minimize non immersion is to minimize metagame.

There may not be a plethora of mainstream Deep Immersion manifestos out there, but the above 2 sentiments are routinely encountered all over the place.


And once you are on the yellow brick road (I could add here: accompanied by the heartless, the brainless, and the cowardly, but that might be pushing the metaphor a bit far) you will find it increasingly difficult to stray from the road.

Unfortuneately the Emerald City ain't really emerald, the Great and Powerful Oz is niether great nor powerful, and the whole Deep Immersionist shebang is just a grand hoax.

Hopefully, you've brought along a pair of ruby/silver slippers.

I don't like the terminology being used here at all, although I think I pretty well understand both sides of the discussion.

What's the difference between 'playing in character' and 'immersion'? Between 'immersion' and 'deep immersion'? Well, some have offered varying definitions of these terms, and according to the definition Raven and Ralph have used, I would tend to agree with their assessment of the overall situation. Except that I don't think they're talking about a technique per se at all, but the abuse of a technique in service of a personality dysfunction.

I have had a fair number of acquaintances, some who played RPGs and some who didn't, who were essentially total narcissists. All they really wanted to talk about was themselves, ever, 24/7. Some would 'listen' to you talk, but all that really ever was was a kind of quid pro quo, a pause for you to (in their estimation, anyway) talk about yourself for a while before they started talking about themselves again.

Such people are borderline sociopaths, in my opinion, and I have exiled every single one from my community of friends given time to determine that they weren't interested in breaking out of this pattern. These people are parasites. Your mileage may vary and all that.

In my opinion, what's going on with Ralph's and Raven's 'deep immersionist' is actually this. A person who is, basically, one of these sociopathic losers has discovered that, within the land of playing RPGs, there is a weasely theoretical justification for them to do whatever they want to do with no responsibility to the other people in their group. They call it 'playing in character' or whatever, but in reality it's all about holding you hostage to their banal, endless rehearsing of their little psychodrama. These people inflict themselves on the rest of us and then loftily withdraw to the jejune 'theory' which allows them to tell you you should politely put up with their nonsense.

Well, Ralph and Raven are right to call foul on this kind of behavior, but - assuming I'm not just radically misreading the two of you here - it's a standard social foul in my book, not a somehow dysfunctional RPG technique. Because AFAICT you can be pretty deeply and fundamentally immersed in your character, as 'deep' as you want to go (and I know this isn't how you're using the term, but that's partly what I'm complaining about), and still be aware enough of what's going on around you to reinforce what others are doing and respect their limits.

Hell, bondage enthusiasts and fetishists of all varieties do 'deep immersion' role-playing all the time, better than most RPGers do, with their actual private parts hangin' out there and involved in the show, out on the edge of a certain kind of really intense something, and they manage to snap out of it when they violate or come close to violating each others' boundaries a hell of a lot more often than the kind of person we're talking about does.

But that's sort of my point here. The language is generating the fight. The way I'd go instead would be this. There's a technique, of variable intensity, of playing in character; call this immersion. When you're really heavily into it, call that deep immersion. You can get as heavy as you want as long as you don't become a self-indulgent narcissistic jerk, but that's a social and personality flaw, not a flaw with the technique proper.

The other way is to use 'deep immersion' to mean 'immersion plus this social flaw', but I think that's turning the ambiguity the wrong way, because 'deep immersion' sounds like the name of a technique, not a pathology.


(Edited to tone down language a little.)

Sean said it more completely than I will try to replicate. I'll just agree: Really bad terminology is obscuring whatever message Ralph is trying to get across.

Unlike Sean I don't think I know what Ralph is saying.

Ralph said that the phenomenon he was thinking of was a technique and an attitude. I'm labelling the technique (as he does) Immersion. The attitude I'm labelling "Technique Obsession", until somebody gives me a clearer term.

Ralph, what would you think (hypothetically) of somebody Technique-Obsessed with, say, No-Myth roleplay? To the point, say, that they argued against Aggressive Scene Framing as a spawn of beelzebubba, because it leads to "railroading".

I'm just trying to get a grip on whether you think that only Immersion could possibly foster this sort of rabid and troublesome mentality, or whether it's possible with many techniques.

Sean wrote: Except that I don't think they're talking about a technique per se at all, but the abuse of a technique in service of a personality dysfunction.

Well, Ralph and Raven are right to call foul on this kind of behavior, but - assuming I'm not just radically misreading the two of you here - it's a standard social foul in my book, not a somehow dysfunctional RPG technique.

But that's sort of my point here. The language is generating the fight. The way I'd go instead would be this. There's a technique, of variable intensity, of playing in character; call this immersion. When you're really heavily into it, call that deep immersion. You can get as heavy as you want as long as you don't become a self-indulgent narcissistic jerk, but that's a social and personality flaw, not a flaw with the technique proper.

Ralph, what would you think (hypothetically) of somebody Technique-Obsessed with, say, No-Myth roleplay? To the point, say, that they argued against Aggressive Scene Framing as a spawn of beelzebubba, because it leads to "railroading".

I'm just trying to get a grip on whether you think that only Immersion could possibly foster this sort of rabid and troublesome mentality, or whether it's possible with many techniques.

Valamir wrote:
Its not simply enough to say "yeah I like immersion". Because deep immersive techniques are harmful to the hobby. If you're a self identified immersionist you should be looking at how you play and why and what you really do and whether you are using the technique well or whether you are perpetuating the problem.

Valamir wrote: It is dysfunctional behavior that has been popularised to the point of being accepted as the way you're supposed to play.
....
And the answer is: Because we've been trained to accept it at the gaming table. Because for years the hobby has been identifying this behavior not only as acceptable but preferred. Acting in this dysfunctional fashion is what we're SUPPOSED to be doing.
....
First, you are painting far too extreme a case. You are taking something which is a pervasive issue throughout the hobby, and identifying it with only the most extreme examples of the problem. As I've said before its not the extreme practitioners who are the problem. Its the "inadvertant" and "naive" types whose numbers are not just a handful of wackos but make up a significant base line of players in the hobby who play in this manner out of habit or misguided notions that its the "right" way to play.
....
Its all of the people who've bought in to the fundamentally incorrect assumptions of play I outlined above and now go through the motions of such play even though they themselves aren't narcissistic jerks. Because that's how they've been trained.
....
Rather I'm certain that the language and habit of thinking in terms of Deep Immersion was assembled and constructed over time and worked its way into the core assumptions of gaming, in much the same mechanism as ethnic stereotyping. By this I mean that you can't point a finger a couple of racists who first started the stereotype and then launched a publicity campaign to besmirch the ethnic group. Rather such stereo types are assembled in bits and pieces over time and spread through habit, repetition, careless thinking, a lack of critical analysis of the major components of the stereotype and why they're being repeated, and prevailing social standards that accept them without question.

Hi, Ralph.

I agree with you that this problem is unduly pervasive in the hobby. I tend to be cynical about human nature, so I've assumed that that's because the hobby attracts an abnormally high percentage of jerks, perhaps just because it offers this sort of (false) justification for their jerk-like behavior. Your thought, that we're actually training non-jerks to behave like jerks, is a chilling one, and bears some consideration.

I can think of examples of pretty heavily immersive games that I've been in that were not especially marred by the particular sort of self-absorbed and narcissistic jerkiness we're discussing, but on the other hand I've seen lots of tables full of dysfunctional gamers both employing and hiding behind immersion as a justification for their behavior. Are all those people really the sort of one-in-a-hundred self-absorbed turds you occasionally encounter in other walks of life? And does role-playing attract or create such people?

Insofar as it does the latter, I agree that we should adopt a 'by any means necessary' (well, except by promoting falsehood, evil, or ugliness) attitude towards fighting this. Because if that's so, role-playing really is a corrupting hobby for some people, though not for the reasons that some Christians like to give.

Best,

Sean

Certainly there are folks who take the need for characterization too far and hamstring the story, but likewise there are people who take the need for story too far and hamstring characterization. One is "deep immersion" and the other "railroading". Both are dysfunctional, at least to those who prefer a different creative agenda. This is the source of complaints about how others' play ruined someone's enjoyment. I know people who think any form of aggressive scene-framing is railroading, and others who think that any form of in-character decision that does not feed into the ongoing plot is deep immersion.

I consider myself a immersionist (the Method Actor of Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering) in that I try to maintain a consistent behavioral model for my characters. However, I do not necessarily ignore metagame considerations. I tend to see things coming and discuss with my gamemaster whether he or she needs me to choose a particular course of action. If it is necessary, we also talk about how best to rationalize the decision such that the character's authenticity (the degree to which other players' suspension of disbelief is reinforced by portrayal of the character) is maintained.

It is my belief that dysfunctional roleplaying arises out of dysfunctional personality. This is not the fault of the dysfunctional person but instead typically has its roots in the individuals' environment and socialization. People do not typically choose to be jerks, assholes, losers or whatever denigrating terms you choose to heap on them. Let's not forget that, by participating in this hobby of roleplaying, mainstream society considers each of us a geek, nerd, loser or worse. A little compassion goes a lot farther in changing someone's play habits than otracism and elitism. If you aren't having fun, perhaps the problem isn't with other players... it's with you.

But then, I honestly think this thread is just another tantrum about how people are annoyed at not getting their way at the gaming table. That's life, my friends... adapt or die. Different strokes for different folks.

Hello,

You folks have all read and carefully studied thoughts on why immersion is a tar baby and all related links, right?

Because any and all terminological issues, like the ones that keep concerning you, Tony, are handled there in detail. For purposes of this thread, Ralph (Valamir) is being very clear about exactly what he's criticizing, and to say "but the term immersion doesn't mean that to me" is irrelevant.

Best,
Ron

Valamir wrote: Now John, I know you'd very much like to see a mainstream example of a Deep Immersionist manifesto, and in the absence of such are inclined to dismiss Deep Immersion as being a non existant straw man. But such a manifesto is not necessary.

All that is necessary is to show two things:
1) The sentiment that being immersed is better than not being immersed.
2) The sentiment that metagame interferes with immersion and thus should be avoided.

You don't need wild eyed fanatical manifestos in order to arrive at the Oz-like destination of Deep Immersion from there. You merely have to follow the yellow brick road of the above two sentiments and you'll be on your way to Emerald City.

Ron, thank you for the link. It was very interesting.

My concern isn't that I think I disagree with Ralphs overall point. If he wants to define his own term ("Deep Immersion") and say "This refers to people who act mean in the following narrowly defined way", and then say "Deep Immersion is bad", there really isn't very much to disagree with. I've met such people. I didn't like them. So far as I can tell nobody likes them.

In fact, I don't see what Ralph is saying, beyond "Mean people suck".

It's not that I think "Hurray! Up with mean people!" I just thought that he must be saying something... I don't know... more. In fact, he probably is. But I'm clearly not qualified to dig it out. I've tried and failed.

I suspect this discussion includes an important nugget of wisdom that I can take back to my play group. I would really appreciate if somebody could sum it up for me in a readers digest version. I am a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me :-)

John Kim wrote: However, you are defining Deep Immersion as the majority practice in role-playing, and that it is evil.

I'll throw in my bias. In my opinion, the overwhelming problem the RPG hobby is facing is One-True-Way-ism

The thing is, I feel that Ralph is adding to the problem here. i.e. He is saying that the majority of RPG play is Deep Immersion, and that it is the spawn of the devil and should be purged.

In my opinion, squabbling like this is harmful as well as pointless.

D&D and other traditional RPGs aren't going away. If you think the games that are out there aren't fun, then make ones that are better from your point of view. If other people are like you, then more people will play them and stop playing the un-fun ones.

There is no brainwashing or secret conspiracy going on here

If you disagree with me, then please answer my challenge: describe in real, visible terms how to distinguish Deep Immersion from other play.

RaconteurX wrote:
Certainly there are folks who take the need for characterization too far and hamstring the story, but likewise there are people who take the need for story too far and hamstring characterization. One is "deep immersion" and the other "railroading". Both are dysfunctional

TonyLB wrote: My concern isn't that I think I disagree with Ralphs overall point. If he wants to define his own term ("Deep Immersion") and say "This refers to people who act mean in the following narrowly defined way", and then say "Deep Immersion is bad", there really isn't very much to disagree with. I've met such people. I didn't like them. So far as I can tell nobody likes them.

In fact, I don't see what Ralph is saying, beyond "Mean people suck".

I think the key words are `social' and `responsibility'. RPG play is a social activity and you are responsible for keeping the Social Contract. If you are going to immerse to a degree that your ability to keep the SC is impaired, you had better design your character in such a way that it will keep the SC for you.

To address the recurring example, the catatonic immersionist runs afoul of most SCs. He can address that by immersing less, or by immersing in a character that doesn't go quiescent for extensive periods, or by seeking a group whose SC accepts this behavior.

I also agree with Valamir that pretending immersion (deep or otherwise) is The One True Way is bad and limiting. You could argue that that is the case for any One True Way position (true), but that ignores, as Valamir rightly points out, the particular prevalence of this OTW.

In an unrelated point...

I think part of the controversy is indeed semantic tar-babying (I've always wanted to write that :-) Valamir, am I rephrasing your position correctly when I say that you are opposed to play that emphasizes character consistency over all other concerns?

SR
--

Rob Carriere wrote: Valamir, am I rephrasing your position correctly when I say that you are opposed to play that emphasizes character consistency over all other concerns?

Firstly, despite it's prevalence in conventional RP books, is DI really that prevalent "in the wild"?

Secondly, I can't speak for Ralph, but I'm certainly leary of any statement that says that any single aspect of play should be held as inherently an unssailably superior to any other in all cases for all players and groups.

The assumption that DI is "doing it right" is, to my mind, the source of a lot of hostility to various indie games, or rather their mechanics, which proceed from the presumption that DI is not necessary for good play.

A little while back on RPG.net, I got caught up in a tar-baby argument that started with "narrativism is the munchkins new clothes"; why? Because, apparently, mechanisms like Buffy's plot points and Adventure's dramatic editing put metagame power in the players hands, not the GM's. Which is like, wrong, because you should just shut up and play the character... GGGGGGGGAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

And it's why games like Universalis get called "Weird" or "pervy" or (horror of horrors!) "Not really role playing games." Because these games "do it wrong", but work, and are fun, and the DI cheerleaders can't work out why...

All in my opinion, hell, I'm probably projecting.

Valamir, am I rephrasing your position correctly when I say that you are opposed to play that emphasizes character consistency over all other concerns?

Montag wrote:

To address the recurring example, the catatonic immersionist runs afoul of most SCs.

I am opposed to the act of promoting any single element of play over all other concerns.

Everyone, even the most DI oriented gamer, can look at a bland statement like that and agree with it completely. And then go right back to their DI ways, because they don't associate the general inobtrusive statement with what they are doing.

Valamir wrote: Some folks need to have their feathers ruffled and their comfortable assumptions about what they think they know about roleplaying challenged from time to time.

Valamir,
Thanks for the clarification. I was trying to get the subject rephrased without using the word `immersion', because that word seems to be many times more trouble than it's worth. Ruffling people's feathers may be useful on occasion, but ruffling people's feathers over semantics I have never seen produce anything positive or even non-negative.

I would think something like `full-time characterization', or `insistent characterization' would convey your meaning, have about the same head-whacking force, and be free of the annoying discussion about the whichness of what that is immersion.

---

Contacycle,
I have seen catatonic players, but never a catatonic immersionist. However, several people in this thread have claimed to have directly observed such players. I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve them and beyond that would be willing to entertain the concept `for the sake of the argument', since the catatonic immersionist has only been used to stand in for all immersive behavior that breaks the SC. As such, it's existence or lack thereof doesn't really impact the arguments from either side, as far as I can see.

(BTW, something went wrong with your quote button: you're quoting Valamir and me, but attributing to Montag.)

SR
--

Actually, Ralph comes across as a guy who's been told pretty consistently over the last few years by a great many people in a great many places that his preferred style, and his game, are "wrong", and "not playing it right", or just "not really role playing".

And to back up these assertations, these guys point back to years or rulebooks and articles saying the very same thing (along with the impossible thing, and other stuff I personally feel have held back the potential of the hobby for years).

So, when Ralph comes back with:

1. Your holy grail is a one-true-way manifesto for solipsism
2. Any such one true way manifesto misses a great deal of valid play
3. Such a a manifesto has been promoted as one true way in role-playing for nigh on 20 years.
4. I'm mad as hell, etc etc

I'm wondering why some folks think Ralph is the boogie man telling them they're playing wrong.

Now I can see folks having issues with 1, but I also see that 2 and 3 are pretty self evident. So don't worry about Ralph having his feathers ruffled, it happens pretty much every time he mentions an alternative to DI outside of an environment like the Forge.

BTW, if Ralph preferred story-telling to roleplaying, he'd be in a writers group, not an RPG group, I'm sure. Anyway, story-telling vs role-playing is about as false a dichotomy as I've seen recently.

The DI agenda doesn't "control the hobby", but if anyone can tell me that the vast majority of best selling RPG rulebooks aren't full of unchallenged assumptions about "what an RPG is," I'd be very surprised. The impossible thing is one, task resolution vs conflict resolution is another, the need for a combat system is another, centralised GM functions & authority is another, and the assumptions of the superiority of DI, actor stance for players, necessity of IC/OOC division, one player = one PC make up a good portion of the rest.

Obligatory silly post scriptum:

Rob: if you saw a catatonic player, how do you know they weren't deeply immersed?

BTW, there's been other names for it: my favourite has to be "method roleplayer", if only because so many of those promoting this style of RP to the exclusion of other techniques would be as proud of the badge as bad method actors are of their technique to the exclusion of others.

Stanislavsky's method started by being 1) a great boon to the craft of acting, then it became 2) a dogma (never mind if your performance was good or terrible, only your immersion in character mattered), and now it's 3), depending on where you're acting, another tool, still the one true way (amongst folk who can't accept that people would want to watch non-method actors) or a worn out joke.

Currently, DI, or method RP, or whatever you want to call it, is being promoted at the level of 2) above... like in drama school of the 60's & 70's (according to friends of mine, cough), it's hard to find a text (for drama, it was teachers rather than text) that doesn't at least tacitly support it. Funny thing is, "in the wild" of theatre, TV & film, actors for the main part just got on with it.

Pete Darby's post reminds me of an anecdote, which may or may not be true (anyone with a confirmation and source please drop me a mail!), but which is relevant to the topic at hand.

Apparently Dustin Hoffman and Lawrence Olivier were in a film or play together at one point. Hoffman was a method actor. Everyone was waiting on him to do a scene where he was really angry, and Hoffman was sitting there in the corner, his eyes bugging out, gripping his hair, going completely wild, trying to make himself really angry so he could play the scene right.

Everyone on the set got very unnerved. Finally, when he came storming off his seat to play his part, Olivier just shook his head and said: "You could try acting."

Pete, I wonder, is one of the particular problems critics of method acting point out that method actors have trouble dynamically interacting with other members of their ensemble?

Literature on this subject might be quite relevant indeed to the topic of this thread.

I have been following this thread for some time without contributing for fear of merely reduplicating what has already been said. At the risk of doing just that, let me just say that the terminology being employed is very problematic in many cases. When RaconteurX says to Ralph

I've narrowed down our differences to one of priorities: you prefer storytelling to roleplaying, which is unequivocably evinced in Universalis, whereas I (and, supposedly, the textbook "deep immersionist") prefer roleplaying to storytelling.

pete_darby wrote: So, when Ralph comes back with:
1. Your holy grail is a one-true-way manifesto for solipsism
2. Any such one true way manifesto misses a great deal of valid play
3. Such a a manifesto has been promoted as one true way in role-playing for nigh on 20 years.
4. I'm mad as hell, etc etc
I'm wondering why some folks think Ralph is the boogie man telling them they're playing wrong.

Valamir wrote: For a Deep Immersionist anything that interferes (or is percieved to potentially interfere) with immersion is to be avoided.

Now John, I know you'd very much like to see a mainstream example of a Deep Immersionist manifesto, and in the absence of such are inclined to dismiss Deep Immersion as being a non existant straw man. But such a manifesto is not necessary.

pete_darby wrote: The DI agenda doesn't "control the hobby", but if anyone can tell me that the vast majority of best selling RPG rulebooks aren't full of unchallenged assumptions about "what an RPG is," I'd be very surprised. The impossible thing is one, task resolution vs conflict resolution is another, the need for a combat system is another, centralised GM functions & authority is another, and the assumptions of the superiority of DI, actor stance for players, necessity of IC/OOC division, one player = one PC make up a good portion of the rest.

John, please check what I'm saying: that what we're calling deep immmersion, and the techniques that support it, are so seriously embedded as assumptions within most conventional role-play rulebooks that bringing up any alternatives really does involve an uphill struggle.

I'm not "attacking" D&D, or champions... but I am saying that the current verioins of those rulesets, along with many others, carry a lot of unchallenged assupmtions in them as to what "the best" kind of play is, and many of those assumptions arise from holding DI or method role play as the ultimate form of play.

Also, are you honestly saying, John, that having these blanket assumptions, not just DI, but all the others, cropping up in virtually every new game as "how RPG's are done," doesn't hurt the hobby as a whole.

Get this: I'm not "attacking games that unquestioningly support DI", I'm bemoaning the fact that it passes unquestioned so often.

I'm also saying that the vast amount of real play out there isn't DI, and that perhaps some games with deeper immersion would be improved by it, as well as some games with less method role-play. But recently in several fora and talking to friends, the supriority of method role-play has been held up in front of me, even by folks that don't actually play that way, that saying it's not being held up as a gold standard seems pretty far form my personal experience.

If 90% of movies were westerns, and every time I started a conversation about films that weren't westerns, folk told me that they weren't proper films because they had no guys on horses shooting each other, or that they were "screwy, weird" sorts of films, I'd start to think, maybe, there were some unchallenged assumptions about the nature of film that were going around. Now, it's like me and Ralph are saying "promoting Westerns as the only sort of film is pretty bad for films and viewers." Ralphs going as far as saying "And, ultimately, the Western is a pretty limited genre", which, ya know, fair enough, but that's not the main point.

And even saying that lot, we still wouldn't be saying "Westerns suck!", or even "Rio Grande sucks!" We're not saying D&D or Champions or Vampire suck...but they have large amounts of their rulebooks built on unchalleneged assumptions about what RPG's are or should be, and the fact that these assumptions are still dominant does provide a barrier to games that break these assumptions.

Sean: allegedly, that exchange was on the set of Marathon Man... Actually, the problem with method actors is the same as any artist who relies on a narrow set of tools or techniques: you never find out if you'd be better with a wider set.

Hoffman pretty effectively lampooned his own history in the film "Tootsie", depsite the worst female impersonation ever comitted to film: watch the early sections to see a method actor destroying a promising career with an extreme technique.

Eric,

Unlike like many here on the Forge, I attempt to use plain, unambiguous definitions. Roleplaying is simply playing a role, i.e., playing a character. Storytelling is telling a story. Ralph's chief objection in this and previous threads has always seemed, at least to me, to distill down to "those mean character people are ruining my story!"

I agree with Ralph that a balance of elements can produce far more fun. Many people prefer system to be as transparent as possible, but no one whom I have met, in my twenty-six years in this hobby, would insist that metagame conceits are utterly outside their consideration. While internal consistency to character is important, it is not (and had never been) the sole thing of import.

Dysfunction occurs when the expectations of those concerned fail to mesh harmoniously. This can be especially heightened when some involved are slavishly devoted to one element over the others. In this sense Ralph and I are in accord. I do not believe, however, that Ralph is necessarily free of the blinders which he insists inhibit others.

I am beginning to believe that the true problem lays in something Orson Scott Card, in his very useful How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy, calls the "MICE quotient". MICE is an acronym for the structural elements that govern a story: Milieu, Idea, Character and Event. The model maps reasonably well to play expectations, and thus perhaps creative agendas.

Sorry, no more time at the moment to flesh this out further...

pete_darby wrote: John, please check what I'm saying: that what we're calling deep immmersion, and the techniques that support it, are so seriously embedded as assumptions within most conventional role-play rulebooks that bringing up any alternatives really does involve an uphill struggle.

I'm not "attacking" D&D, or champions... but I am saying that the current verioins of those rulesets, along with many others, carry a lot of unchallenged assupmtions in them as to what "the best" kind of play is, and many of those assumptions arise from holding DI or method role play as the ultimate form of play.

Also, are you honestly saying, John, that having these blanket assumptions, not just DI, but all the others, cropping up in virtually every new game as "how RPG's are done," doesn't hurt the hobby as a whole.

If 90% of movies were westerns, and every time I started a conversation about films that weren't westerns, folk told me that they weren't proper films because they had no guys on horses shooting each other, or that they were "screwy, weird" sorts of films, I'd start to think, maybe, there were some unchallenged assumptions about the nature of film that were going around. Now, it's like me and Ralph are saying "promoting Westerns as the only sort of film is pretty bad for films and viewers." Ralphs going as far as saying "And, ultimately, the Western is a pretty limited genre", which, ya know, fair enough, but that's not the main point.

Marzaan wrote:

The rule books say how their author thinks that game should be played. If your group is of your opinion - houserule it, if not - look for a game that matches your taste. And if you have really a good idea it should be possible to find a group.

And it is easy enough to make your own houserules, that in my opinion sales numbers is a good indicator what works /is good enough, even if it doesn´t fit my taste.

pete_darby wrote:
``...
I'm not "attacking" D&D, or champions... but I am saying that the current verioins of those rulesets, along with many others, carry a lot of unchallenged assupmtions in them as to what "the best" kind of play is, and many of those assumptions arise from holding DI or method role play as the ultimate form of play.
..
If 90% of movies were westerns, and every time I started a conversation about films that weren't westerns, folk told me that they weren't proper films because they had no guys on horses shooting each other, or that they were "screwy, weird" sorts of films, I'd start to think, maybe, there were some unchallenged assumptions about the nature of film that were going around. Now, it's like me and Ralph are saying "promoting Westerns as the only sort of film is pretty bad for films and viewers." Ralphs going as far as saying "And, ultimately, the Western is a pretty limited genre", which, ya know, fair enough, but that's not the main point. ''

If 90% of games were really oriented towards ``deep immersion'' I would understand your point. But that is not my experience. To extend your metaphor, to me the reasoning looks like, ``The Western fans are killing the movies. Everything's a western now: Lord of the Rings (cause there were horses), Master and Commander (hiistorical combat movie, therefore Western), the Last Samarai , the Alamo, the Punsiher (shoots 'em up), Kill Bill (ditto),...." While there are some common threads to the types of instructions that you mention for role-playing, only a few would be anything I'd directly relate to``Immersive play'', and the image of ``Deep Immersion'' is totally foreign to anything I've experienced in many years of role-playing. In particular, if Champions is listed as a sytem that encourages immersion, then I am at a loss as to what you mean by the term.

One of Vladamir's concrete pieces of evidence that immersive play is the dominant form is that many RPG's advise against acting on out-of-character information. While this may be a limiting piece of conventional wisdom, this seems relatively unrelated to whether one plays immersively or not. There are many reasons to like or dislike OOC knowledge influencing character actions, most of which have nothing to do with immersion.

A gamist player might think certain OOC actions are ``unfair''. As an analogy, I have played Scrabble with people who purposefully bluff with non-words, but I myself would not play in that style. For the bluffer, the psychological element added spice; for me, the game is about vocabulary, tactics, and pattern-finding, and I find an extra element of bluffing makes the game less enjoyable. So one gamist player might want to utilize all available options, while another might want to concentrate on tactics and strategy within the ``game board''. If the second player is writing the rules, she will advise against using OOC information. But neither player is playing immersively.

One narrativist player might enjoy stories that have a certain rythym that can only be guaranteed by taking OOC information into account. ``I could use my instadeath spell here, but this is the climatic battle, so I'll stretch it out by testing my opponent first." Others would find a story where the protagonist held back against his deadliest foe psychologically unbelievable, and so would choose to use the spell, although they might be happier if the GM rules that it fails. Both player types are in director stance, making decisions to affect the tone of the story, not playing in immersive stance. They just have different aesthetics.

I think a simulationist player would almost always object to OOC information, but not all simulationists are immersives or vice versa. Many an immersive is happy if the GM acts on real-world information, it's just asking them to act outside character that would interfere with their enjoyment. Many simulationists act at a level of modelling their characters, rather than immersing themselves in the character.

For many of the above types, there isn't a global refusal to deal with OOC information. Using the fact that the GM doesn't own a fiend folio to not prepare to fight glyphworms in a territory that is ripe for them might be ``cheating'' whereas making fewer preparations than usual before combat because Mary is leaving in an hour and we want to get on with things is a noble sacrifice.

What I have picked up by the term Immersion is a stance (I would not call it a technique, since it is not a means to an end) where the player is is modelling the character at a subconscious and empathetic level that gives the player access to some of what the character is feeling. The ``deeper'' the immersion, the more emotional spillover there is. While strong character emotions can be distracting from externals, and vice versa, the player is generally aware of what's going on in real life, and is usually highly responsive to game events. The ``comatose'' immersive player is one I haven't met; I have met shy players who talk little, and I have met quietly amused ``audience stance'' players, and players that work 16 hour days and tend to fall asleep in games, but these are not immersives. Immersive players are NOT in ``actor stance'' since they are not consciously trying to communicate their character's states. However, as pointed out above, they could be considered in ``method actor'' stance, which sometimes is a good vehicle for conveying such information even if it is not the last word in acting.

I have never played in a majority-immersive game, and don't require other players to be immersive to play immersively myself. However, I can only play immersively in a system and style that does not distract me too much with constant OOC interuptions. For example, a system that interferes with immersion is ``plot points'' where the player has to shift into author stance to add extra information about events. On the other hand, making each character responsible for adding information about the character's in-game areas of expertise enhances immersion. Minimizing total metagame issues isn't as important for me to play immersively as not having to go back and forth between metagame and in-game issues. When I want to play immersively, I will design a character that I think will interact well with the other PCs and want to further the plot. That way, there will be less conflict between in-character and metagame motives. I don't think that immersive vs. actor/director stance is selfish, especially when you consider that many players prefer being in the spotlight to being in the audience. When a game makes it difficult for me to play immersively, I'll happily play in actor stance, and actor stance is certainly easier if less rewarding for me.

MR. Analytical wrote:
A) I think you're missing Pete's point. Pete is arguing against DI as an unquestionned assumption. Certainly he could go out and play a game without DI. In fact he could never run into any professional RPGs making the omnipresence of DI completely irrelevant to him. But the point he is trying to make still stands, as I understand it. He's not arguing for or against it, he's saying that it's one of those assumptions that needs to be called into question like GM monopoly of narrative, the use of dice or any other feature of game design.

B) Sales numbers mean absolutely nothing. If sales meant anything artistically then the Forge would be a complete waste of time as RPGing would be all about simulationist fantasy dungeon crawling.

pete_darby wrote:
I'm not "attacking" D&D, or champions... but I am saying that the current verioins of those rulesets, along with many others, carry a lot of unchallenged assupmtions in them as to what "the best" kind of play is, and many of those assumptions arise from holding DI or method role play as the ultimate form of play.

Well, maybe DI is one of the ultimate extensions of Sim, and the pushing of an exclusively sim agenda is pushing towards DI.

And I'm not "demanding" that conventional rule sets do anything: this is more a "feel my pain" talk that a "thou shalt, thou shalt not" talk on my part.

Russell: the whole OOC /IC information thing: damn straight SIm play can feed very happily on OOC character information. But that style of play is very under represented in conventional RP rule sets, because ever deeper immmersion is still typically held up as a gold standard of play.

I'm not anti-sim, or anti-immersion, just anti it being assumed as the ne plus ultra of play. Which has been my experience, but maybe I'm getting off on some quixotic anti-DI kick. I mean, I don't think I am, I think DI is being assumed as the best kind of play by a great many rule sets, and players, but maybe I've just been reading the wrong books and talking to the wrong players.

Maybe the Western metaphor was too stretched (since it's not likely to happen, and I'm not saying it is happening, so where did LotR and Master & Commander come from?).

Let's stick with it a moment, though: these folks who "like westerns and don't want to watch sci-fi..." If they've only ever seen Westerns, and if they've only ever had other styles of film discussed as compared to Westerns, how do they know they won't like something else better?

For British readers, replace "westerns & cinema" with "DIY & antique shows and TV". Or, US & UK, think about last year & the year before when you wanted one night of TV that didn't have a reality TV show. For reality TV, read DI promoters.

Anyway, that's how I'm feeling, obviously other folks don't feel the same, are we just talking past each other now?

I suspect that there is a lot of confusion over agendas and terms used in this thread, with people taking taking various interpretations and degrees of meaning of both such things as immersion, deep immersion, and the theory that many games and playing styles have an inherant bias towards promoting these and working against OOC knowledge and metagame knowledge. Others have tried to clarify all of these earlier in the thread.
What does not seem to have been put into perspective is the 'history' behind it all.
What follows, for what it may be worth, is a personal account of these issues from a perspective of the gaming group I played in and GM'd for through that time. Others may well have had a different experience, but it seemed typical for those I played with and met over the years.
I have been playing rpgs since 1976 (I mention it not to gain any cudos-Im sure others here have played longer, rather to show that I have played throughout much of the hobbies development and as such have a long perspective on how the hobby has evolved).
When I first started playing immersion was, quite frankly, totally irrelevant. We just did not play that way. Everybody I knew played for laughs and for the fun of it, nobody took it very seriously. That is not to say that nobody else did anywhere else, but the pervading mood I sensed at the time was that these sort of topics were just not in popular usage or conciousness.
Over time as new game systems were developed and players became more sophisticated in their approach to the hobby, a new awareness seemed to dawn-game systems became more inclined to look at how people 'should' play and eventually these philosophies found their way into a wide acceptance. My own gaming group adapted to these, and we became inclined to follow then unquestioningly. Other gamers I met seemed to do the same. At this time little or nothing seemed to be discussed or dissected about exactly how people played or why or what terminology was best-there was not even much of a method open to do this. A certain degree of seriousness then entered our play, and concerns over OOC developed alongside attempts to achieve deeper immersion in a game. A lot of discussion occured in the game group about how to achieve this immersion as if it were a sort of 'holy grail' of gaming. For the first time issues of how we played, not what we played, became important.
Many of the games we played were moving further and further from the hobbies wargaming roots at this time as well.
Immersive techniques seemed to be discussed more in gamebooks, and the OOC issue became more apparent in them, but I would suggest this was a subtle shift. We all certainly felt at the time that this was the 'correct way to play'.
More recently agendas in game systems became stronger (white wolfs storytelling system for example), but even these often offered mixed messages and showed basic dichotemies between the suggested playing approach and the game mechanics. This suggests strongly to me that most developers were as much in the dark about the deeper aspects of 'game theory' as everyone else was.
The evolution of online forums such as this one allowed for a different kind of interaction about rpgs however, and I would suggest that the emphasis on terminologies and precise meanings/approaches has been evolving from this more than anything else. The ability to discuss and share,coupled with the state of devolpment in the hobby, has created and sustained a deeper level of theory collectively and has allowed particular applications of language and theory to grow.
The flowering of indie game design enhanced by the internet and self publishing opportunities has allowed greater experimentation to run alongside this discussion.
My own circle of gamers are still entrenched in the no OOC mode, striving for immersion however. They are strongly resistent to models of play that are different in any way, and by and large they have not pursued any of the forums or indie games available that demonstrate alternatives. The period in which we played the sort of DI, no OOC approach mentioned by some here, coupled with the number of gamebooks supporting it implicitly in their texts has created a strong bias toward a belief that this is how rpgs should be played, despite the simple fact that it was not how we originally played them.
As a referee and a designer, I have been interested in exploring new approaches but have met considerable resistence to breaking any of the accepted 'scared cows' of rpgs (having a GM, DI, diceless games and so on). All a bit tricky since I am experimenting with a card based GM'less story creating rpg with hardly any stats and a system that encourages OOC. My point is that the resistence is definately there, and it does seem to surround the issue of immersion very strongly (the anti GMless stance for example taking the view that the GM is essential to construct a solid reality for immersion). All the rpg'ers I know locally must have picked it up from somewhere-and lo and behold, the game books they read, along with their own gaming experience, seems to be where it comes from.
With only a very few exceptions, all the gamers I have known, regardless of coming from different groups, age, and so on, tend to fit into this mould. Of the hundreds I have played rpgs with, only two have been exceptions.
I believe it is so prevelent that I have come to the conclusion that I need to do two things in marketing my game (if it gets to that stage): I need to create two systems-a 'story' game that does not even claim to be a rpg and explores different concepts of play, and a trad rpg version that can share supplement material but ditches many of the more radical elements such as GM'less play. The story system would be primarily aimed at non-rpgers or those who have become dissatisfied with rpgs, while the more trad version would be pitched at the standard rpg community.
Finding people I can test play 1-1 with for the story system has become a nightmare though-the gamers I know are mostly highly resistent to it and I dont want to involve testplayers that are hostile from day one. Every time the issue of what they are uncomfortable with comes up, it centers around immersion-without exception.
My own experience seems to indicate that the issues discussed here do reflect aspects of both the industry, and players, approach to gaming, that it is an issue 'felt but rarely understood or dissected' and that everyone seems to have issues about the language used, concepts and meanings that demonstrated a gap between a 'traditional' and 'nontraditional' approach to gaming (one that has evolved over time and was not present in the early days).
The difficulty over sharing meaning and the outright rejection of alternatives is, for me, very reminiscent of the sort of struggles between 'modernist' and 'postmodernist' concepts-there is some sort of deep cultural gulf that is resistent to change and adaption.
It worries me-but it does not suprise me.

Ultimately my point is this-all of these issues discussed have evolved over time, and as such a serious, more academic side has been absent until recently. Attempts to apply this approach to both players and most non-indie designers will inevitably hit problems because there are a lot of aspects that are felt but not understood by proponants of particular views outside the forum. Contradictory stances and attitudes are, I would suggest, the norm outside of these forums, not the exception. To discuss them without becoming ensnared by these contraditions surely requires that we accept that these contradictions exist? We simply cannot take stances ourselves that assume a cohesive body of considered opinion is out there-rather we should look at the subject as largely an immotive one, and that perhaps this is the real problem.

Pete Darby wrote:
``Russell: the whole OOC /IC information thing: damn straight SIm play can feed very happily on OOC character information. But that style of play is very under represented in conventional RP rule sets, because ever deeper immmersion is still typically held up as a gold standard of play.

I'm not anti-sim, or anti-immersion, just anti it being assumed as the ne plus ultra of play. Which has been my experience, but maybe I'm getting off on some quixotic anti-DI kick. I mean, I don't think I am, I think DI is being assumed as the best kind of play by a great many rule sets, and players, but maybe I've just been reading the wrong books and talking to the wrong players.

Maybe the Western metaphor was too stretched (since it's not likely to happen, and I'm not saying it is happening, so where did LotR and Master & Commander come from?).''

My point was that in my experience immersion is a relatively uncommon style, and certainly not the de facto norm. I've read the rule books for DnD and Champions, and don't see any real advocation of Immersion there (there's a conglomorate style they call ``Deep Immersion Storytelling'' in the DM Guide, but it doesn't really describe immersive play). So when you say that DI is a pervasive influence that's limiting role-playing possibilities and list D&D and Champions as examples, this causes me cognitive dissonance, just as listing Master and Commander and LotR as Westerns and then complaining of the prevelance of Westerns would. I can see some similarity between the games you're talking about and games geared for immersion, but only about the same level of similarity as LotR and Treasure of the Sierra Madres. (Both involve corruption by the love of a golden object, for example, and in both they go up to the mountains.)

So what I'm saying is that my reaction to the claim that the pervasiveness of DI is stifling the hobby is about the same as my reaction to a claim that the Western genre is currently dominating film that gave the above movies as examples. My first reaction is that you are not using the term Immersion in the way I use it, and so gave my definition of the term. Alterantively, you could be playing with a very different group of people than who I play with.

A third possibility is more subtle. One of the big boons that threefold/GNS model has been for me is that it exposed some major incoherrence in my previous thoughts on role-playing systems. Before exposure to these concepts, I would defend decisions and rules willy-nilly on the basis of ``realism'', ``fairness and balance'', and ``dramatic impact''. Since most games still have incoherrent justifications that jumble different concepts, you will find appeals to all of the above in most rule sets. So if you're looking for any particular bias, you will find it in the rules for most games somewhere.

The following is something I wish I'd had time to mention prior to my leaving last week is the following, regarding D&D and DI textual support, and how D&D can be a DI supporting game.

This was also to be my reply to John's points about D&D and how I could point it out as an immersion-supporting game, given its other texts and the way it is often played. The answer is: I'm not. Because it isn't meant to be. It's a poster child for what's wrong with the idea of Deep Immersion. The text attempts to enforce the ideal of immersion, while the game itself does not support the pursuit of it.

One of the main complaints about 3E is that you practically have to chart your character's future from rolling him up at 1st level.

Frex, in order to enter any particular prestige class, you can't just come into it or decide to pursue it later in response to events in-game, you have to carefully chart the character's progress (skills bought, feats taken, classes pursued), you have to know your character will be moving into that PrC ahead of time or it will be difficult (even impossible) to attain.

Another interesting feature of D&D (and 3E) is that the game encourages you to choose equipment not based on culture, desire or personality, but on mechanical effectiveness.

Why do I bring these points up?
The DM's guide clearly disapproves of this behavior, because these behaviors require metagame thinking.

As I said before, this is schizophrenic.

D&D, especially 3E, isn't meant to be an immersionist/in-character exercise. The mechanics actually force the player to move outside his character in order to make decisions about the character's effectiveness and future.

The player can ignore that and try to make those decisions based only on the character's non-mechanical bits, but then one is not really playing the game any longer: the character's survival and comparitive ability is severely reduced by it (ie: he goes out-of-whack with the mechanics of the rest of the system).

This is exactly the problem with DI: its acceptance as standard -- or rather, the push for standardization of play regarding 1) adherence to immersion 2) reduction of metagame. It attempts to be all things to all games, even where the game itself doesn't support it, such as in the particular case of 3E D&D.

The text says "Metagame is BAD! Naughty! You MUST immerse!" (remember, and I quote the DMG here, if you base any action on the fact that it is a game, you aren't doing real roleplaying and are spoiling the game...this thinking must always be discouraged) while the mechanics cater to the exact opposite attitude of decision-making in play.

So, when the argument arises against D&D being a DI text because D&D doesn't support heavy immersion, I have to wonder and ask what else is there to turn to given the text's advocacy?

If metagame thinking -- thinking about the game as a game -- is to be always discouraged, and is not real role-playing? What does that say about what behaviors are to be encouraged, and what "real" role-playing is?

What does that tell the reader the concept of "real role-playing" is all about? Particularly when written into a game where the idea of avoiding metagame is simply against the grain of its very mechanics?

This is DI. And this is why it's bad.

I think you're quoting D&D out of context. 3E gives a definition and, perhaps more importantly, an example of the kind of 'metagame thinking' they criticize.

Regards,

Hal

Hello,

I have confirmed that nearly every recent post concerns, roughly, "what I meant in my earlier post was ..."

I've also given this thread about as much time as it needs to escape from all the usual, wearying hassle that crops up with the term "immersion." It hasn't escaped.

So - time to close it. If you want to discuss something specific about what you or someone else said or "meant," please consider private messages. If you really think you have an inquiry or point of general interest, take it to a new thread.

Best,
Ron