This is from 'Players never have a "free choice"' http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10707&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Valamir wrote:

Tomas wrote:
No character is the sole ownership of any one player.

I would agree with this part anyway. Its one of the principle reasons I've railed against deep immersion as inherently selfish play.

Tomas wrote:
It is the sole vehicle of play for the player,

This part I wouldn't agree with, but I think perhaps you don't mean exactly what is written here. In my view, since no character is the sole ownership of any one player (but rather all players at the table have a vested interest in all characters---or should), then all characters serve as a vehicle to transport all players.

Noon wrote: I'd like to hear some more railing by Ralph or anyone on this, or some links to previous stuff.

OK. Generic Ranting about this from somebody.

In a group with a players vs. GM , which is a standard design element in most published RPGs, the GM is expected to determine the total Effectiveness of the characters, and scale Encounters accordingly for satisfying RP.

So I, as a player, have a vested interest in keeping the characters of my fellow players Effective. If one character drifts away, he weakens the group, and therefore endangers my character. If my character engages in activities which actively harm/inconvenience my fellow characters, then I have decreased our total Effectiveness, and should be curbed by the group for my antisocial behavior.

Lots of "Fellowship," and "Brotherhood of Arms" and all that.

If all I, as a player, care about is my own character, and I don't take into effect that my actions will have upon the Party (or the Fellowship between members of my party) then I have broken our Social Contract.

Now, this element of Fellowship in the Social Contract is often assumed by the design of many games (such as D20), and there are acres of text dedicated to how a group becomes disfunctional when one player monopolizes the GM, or is a problem player in some other way for the group, and the inderlying assumption is that the group matters in some way.

Note the Standard Geek Social Mythology: If I enjoy doing something, and others enjoy doing it too, then we must be friends. Since Gamers, as a class of people, were/are ostracised as teenagers, then we must not ostracise anyone who self-identifies as a gamer, lest we be as Evil As The Jocks. There exists a Brotherhood of Arms amongst fighting men that overcomes all social distinctions and mores, or so says the Church of John Carter of Mars.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, despite my flippant and perjorative phrasing. There is cameraderie amongst military units, there is something to be said for group acceptance, and social skills are necessary, but individuality makes for a full life. Whew.

Well, I'll throw my 2 cents in. This idea isn't really that new. I was first exposed to it in Ars Magica and I think some of the older guys can probably point out games in the 70's-early 80's that used this concept. If you think about it, there was really nothing in RPG's that said you had to use complete actor stance immersion until, like, the early 90's. Then it became, "The right way to role-play." I like to blame White Wolf for most of this, but that isn't totally fair, even if deserving.

Looking for group protagonization of characters you can really go two different ways: troupe style or co-authoring. In troupe style everybody in the RPG group shares a pool of characters from which they draw. You could have mechanics for who gets what character when, or just wing it. Ars Magica supports a certain type of troop play, as does Universalis to my understanding, although I've yet to play it.

In co-authoring play is "standard" but players are encouraged to work together to protagonize all characters. This is actually natural. We do it instinctivly ALL the time; give suggestions to your friends, ask for advice and work together. After all, the main goal is the STORY and it's the group's job to make it rock, the characters are the tools to get there.

I think this is closely related to the "Big Lie Before Breakfast," which is a style of play that is natural of Computer games but is not for table top RPG's.

Big high five to Brendan; I don't have much to add beyond his points.

Best,
Ron

Hey Fred, Welcome to the Forge. I don't think that's exactly what we are talking about. My understanding is that we are not talking about a concern with your character's effectivness relative to the rest of the party, or the effectiveness of the party as a whole, we are talking about ownership. Who, in essance, OWNS a character and their actions.

One can always be concerned about the fate of other characters because of social contract. After all you are playing with your friends and you want them to be having a good time. At least I hope you do :) But this goes a little beyond that.

In gamist play one may be concerned with the loss of a fellow character because it will decrease overall party effectivness, so group ownership could be seen as a way of increasing tactical ability. However, competition between members of the group would be dimminished, so this may or may not be the prefered method of play for this creative agenda.

In simulation oriented play, the immersion may be dimminished by group ownership, as each player wishes to imagine himself in the shared imaginatory space. However, the group as a whole is responsible for maintaning the shared imaginative space so everyone must be mindful of that in their actions.

Narritivist play is supported by shared ownership. Since the goal is addressing premise, each character is a tool used to create that goal. Since premise is group defined the whole group must take some degree of responisbility for all characters.

Interesting. What if you consider the GM as merely another player who has been granted (by the other players) more GM like power than the rest of them. This would mean he is part of this group ownership of PC's as he is a player too?

Likewise, as a fellow player, the world he runs like a PC, would that be part of the group ownership amongst all?

Certainly this resounds with some theory I've seen around here, but from perhaps a different approach angle.

EDIT: Also, the original idea suggest group ownership of PC's. Which means you could have 3 PC's and 4 players (or more) and technically as they are group owned, there is no problem with this (though at a pratical level you wouldn't because we agree one PC can only do so much at a time, so to avoid queing you may as well make more PC's)

Hello,

What if you consider the GM as merely another player who has been granted (by the other players) more GM like power than the rest of them. This would mean he is part of this group ownership of PC's as he is a player too?

Likewise, as a fellow player, the world he runs like a PC, would that be part of the group ownership amongst all?

Ullo,

Well I started the post asking questions, so consider my use of the word 'ownership' in a hypothetical way and quite open to anyone else to say 'well, if you mean ownership in X way, then...'.

Basically I'm asking questions and aware that even elements of my questions may need to be answered/filled in before the question can be itself.

But at the time I wrote it I meant ownership to be something like everyone in the group owning this or that SIS object to some degree or share. Of course it might be agreed someone owns more, less or equal, but everyones got a share. I mean, I'd already thought that basically players own some share of all SIS objects, even if they don't intend to and only think the GM does for X, Y and Z. But the idea of players owning each others PC's is not only suprising and new to me, it also links solidly (I think) to everybody owning a bit of everything.

I'm happy for an idea of what ownership would exactly mean in this case, to be suggested (or a better word suggested if need be). After all, I used the word in more of an effort to get info out of others :)

Great thread.

I actually think Fred's comment above on effectiveness does tie in well to the concept. It represents to me a certain gamist approach to the question, and I think is another way in which gamist and narrativist techniques are often very similiar. If you replace "effectiveness" with "driver of thematic interest" I think the similiarities become clear.


For my part, I view the term "ownership" as being seperate and distinct from "control" (not that surprising, given that the Forge's definition of indie game publishing is pretty much focused on drawing attention to the fact that these two words are not synonomous).

Ownership in this context for me means "entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character as much as you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character, and vice versa".

It doesn't require any sort of pervy mechanics or Universalis style character sharing, or even an Ars Magica style troop approach. I hold the concept to be a fundamental one in all roleplaying activities even the most traditional. And it doesn't necessarily conflict with ideas of "being in character", etc. Its not related to shared control in any way.

What it means for me is recognizing that all players (including the GM) are engaged in an activity of exploring a shared imaginary space. To do this requires that all players recognize that their connection to the other players and their portrayal of their own characters have an impact on that shared imaginary space. Most importantly that since the shared imaginary space is, by definition, shared, that their portrayal of their character impacts the enjoyment of all of the other players at the table.

We all thus have a vested interest in every other character at the table because our enjoyment is dependent on everyone.


Where I find Deep Immersion techniques to be selfish is that they nearly universally place the enjoyment of the deeply immersed player ahead of the enjoyment of the other players at the table. That to me, is the very definition of a selfish behavior.

In order to engage the interest of the other players at the table, one has to be aware of the interest of the other players at the table. One has to pay attention to their tells and reactions; one has to account for their goals as players at the table (that doesn't mean one has to always subordinate your goals to theirs, but it does mean you should be aware of them and work to encorporate elements that enhance everyones enjoyment).

To do this effectively, requires a degree of meta awareness.
1) One has to be paying attention to what's actually going on in the real world amongst real human beings sitting around a table
2) One has to acknowledge that the enjoyment of all of those people at the table is the primary goal of play. That "playing in character" is a technique leading to the end of enjoyed play, not and end in itself.
3) and One must be willing to make adjustments to your own portrayal to elevate and enhance the enjoyment of the other players. That means being willing to sacrifice and compromise even your sacred character for the good of everyone.

Being unwilling to sacrifice or compromise the sacred character is why I call this play selfish. Surely ones fellow human beings are inherently more valuable than an imaginary person.

Deep Immersion as a style, has trouble with this, because the very goal of deep immersion (to be completely submerged in character) interferes with meta awareness. The goal of basing every single action that one has their character perform be completely and exclusively based on ones sole judgement of "what the character would do", leaves little to no room to make adjustments for the betterment of the group; and completely ignores the judgement of the other players as to "what the character would do".

The whole idea of "I know best how to portray my character, and I don't need to take into account any one elses thoughts on that subject but my own" I find to be an extremely selfish attitude to bring to the table, I liken it to Daffy Duck jumping up and down on his ill gotten loot manically screaming "mine, mine, mine, its all mine".

I don't find it unusual for people to enjoy a deeply immersive experience. I'm merely criticising those who place that enjoyment higher than the enjoyment of the other players.

Thanks Ralph! That explained what I was attempting to say, in my second post, much more clearly. I was also having a bit of a hard time with the application of this concept to sim priorities. Your post helped.

Bingo to all! Yeah, substitute in "ability to address Premise" or "ability to lose myself in the Dream" as "Effectiveness," and it works for other CAs, I guess. Maybe just lowercase "e"ffective would have been better.

2) One has to acknowledge that the enjoyment of all of those people at the table is the primary goal of play. That "playing in character" is a technique leading to the end of enjoyed play, not and end in itself.
3) and One must be willing to make adjustments to your own portrayal to elevate and enhance the enjoyment of the other players. That means being willing to sacrifice and compromise even your sacred character for the good of everyone.

I don't think it's fair to categorize one style of play as selfish without providing some context. What are the rest of the players' expectations about how the game will go and how the group will interact?

For example, when I play a strategy game (like Risk or Civilization), I tend to have more fun when I win then when I lose. On the other hand, in a strictly metagame sense, I would not enjoy it if another player specifically altered his strategy to help me come back from behind. The understanding is of an adversarial relationship between the players. If one of them broke from that understanding, he would essentially be changing the nature of the game, and therefore destroying it. Yes, the individual player's behavior is "selfish," but it also unselfishly promotes the game's larger framework.

Likewise, if I go into a game understanding that Deep Immersion roleplaying is the entire point, then I expect a certain kind of behavior from the other players. I expect them to do exactly what their characters would do. Breaking with that convention for the purpose of helping me out as a player isn't doing me any favors. In fact, it is subverting the shared framework that I entered the game to experience. Sure, I might get more time in the spotlight, but the thrill of being the center of attention is fleeting compared to the broader (and admitedly more frustrating) pleasure of creating a realistic story.

People roleplay for a variety of reasons, and I think it's important to keep that context in mind when discussing the relationship between character actions and group enjoyment.

Well, this is re-hashing material which I have said before. Maybe I should make a "standard rant" or essay about this.

Valamir wrote: Being unwilling to sacrifice or compromise the sacred character is why I call this play selfish. Surely ones fellow human beings are inherently more valuable than an imaginary person.

Valamir wrote: In order to engage the interest of the other players at the table, one has to be aware of the interest of the other players at the table. One has to pay attention to their tells and reactions; one has to account for their goals as players at the table (that doesn't mean one has to always subordinate your goals to theirs, but it does mean you should be aware of them and work to encorporate elements that enhance everyones enjoyment).

Valamir wrote: I don't find it unusual for people to enjoy a deeply immersive experience. I'm merely criticising those who place that enjoyment higher than the enjoyment of the other players.

John Kim wrote: Well, this is re-hashing material which I have said before. Maybe I should make a "standard rant" or essay about this.

Valamir wrote: Being unwilling to sacrifice or compromise the sacred character is why I call this play selfish. Surely ones fellow human beings are inherently more valuable than an imaginary person.

This is an invalid argument, because any defined style or goal other than just group enjoyment is inherently selfish. So by the same logic, I can say that Narrativism is inherently selfish, because Narrativists will keep doggedly trying to address moral Premise with their play, even if that interferes with the enjoyment of other players. Surely one's fellow human beings are more important than moral Premise? Therefore, functional play is defined by willingness to sacrifice Premise.

This is true, but irrelevant. Any style is inherently selfish because it might not be preferred. But if players are in alignment, they can enjoy the same style. For example, it is possible for the players to share an enjoyment of addressing Premise. By the same token, it is possible for players to share an enjoyment of uncompromised character.

I disagree with this assumption. You are saying that what is most interesting has to be telling people what you think they want to hear. i.e. That being interesting to others inherently means compromise of your self-expression. I don't find that is true for me. I am often interested by other people's self-expression -- by people telling me what they really feel, not what they think I want to hear. Good fiction often is meaning flowing straight from the heart, rather than mindful manipulation.

Now, if you define "deep immersion" as being only the most extreme state of total unawareness, where a player will really punch someone if his character punches someone -- then yes, obviously deep immersion is bad. But that's reductio ad absurdum. When people speak about immersion in actual play, they don't refer to that extreme. By this logic I can criticize the extreme of non-immersive play because it totally lacks any emotional identification.

This seems typical of players who simply haven't learned to adjust to different styles of play.

To show that it's really selfish, you have to show that immersive play is disliked by other immersive players.

In my experience, I don't think this is true. I know that when I play in what I consider an immersive manner, I typically enjoy the play of other immersive players and am annoyed by non-immersive players.

Whoa, that got toasty.

Anyway, I'm going to go on with my questions, but first thanks for the first post Ralph, really solid answer. But wasn't there a typo in this quote? Or did I read it wrong?

Ownership in this context for me means "entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character as much as you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character, and vice versa".

Noon wrote: Whoa, that got toasty.

Anyway, I'm going to go on with my questions, but first thanks for the first post Ralph, really solid answer. But wasn't there a typo in this quote? Or did I read it wrong?

Ownership in this context for me means "entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character as much as you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of your character, and vice versa".

To get really egotistical, I'm going to quote myself from Tomas' thread:

Consider this: however much you may dislike it, all players around the table, are, by their presence, writer, actor and audience. To claim just one of these roles as the defining one, the important one for enjoying the game, is to deny the enjoyment that comes from the others.

Valamir wrote: I'm sorry if the use of the word "selfish" bothers you. As I see it you have two choices
1) decide that my description of play behavior doesn't even apply to you so you therefor don't need to worry about being so labeled, or
2) if the shoe fits, wear it.
That's up to you.

pete_darby wrote:
That, to me, is the problem, the selfishness, and ultimately the price of deep immersion.

If I'm immersed, I'm denying my role as audience to the totality of play inside the SiS. I'm looking at everything through the lens of the PC. Considerations of the shape of the story, intertextual nuances, dramtic ironies, must be supressed to maintain immersion.

I've had complaints about sticking to my character at times -- I've also had people who said they really liked the depth of my characters.

contracycle wrote:

John Kim wrote: I've had complaints about sticking to my character at times -- I've also had people who said they really liked the depth of my characters.

If people appreciate the depth of yopur characters, then they at some point must have become aware of this depth. For them to be aware of it, fore you to value this perception on their part, strongly implies that you had to communicate it to them, and they have communicated to you their approval - or otherwise. Theres no way around this - if the story and interpretation are going on in your head, how else could they possiby appreciate it?

Yep, I'm with John. Ralph's entire argument relies on the idea that the players in question want to apprieciate the characters of other players. I mean, if I'm not denying anyone any pleasure, because they don't care to appreciate my character, then how am I doing anyone a disservice? By definition, the immersionist doesn't want to step out of character to consider the other characters, and only does so at all through the lense of his character. So, in fact, addressing premise in a metagame way would be a violation of the CA because it forces me to note you creating story in an OOC manner - exactly what the immersionist does not want.

John's example is perfectly valid reasoning. What your rebuttal points out is only that incoherence is bad - which we all know. That if there's someone in the group who does want to appreciate the other player's characters, that they aren't getting what they want. But if you have an entire group coherently committed to playing in Immersionist methods, then everybody is supporting everybody else the best they can, and you wouldn't want anything else. It would be selfish for any of them to step outside of that CA and interfere with the other's enjoyment by doing so.

Now whether such groups actually exist or not is a different matter; if you want to attack it then attack it from the POV that nobody constantly immerses, or has the "perfectly immersionist" need. But aside from that, all you've said, Ralph, is that you no longer like the Immersionist CA. Which is a statement of preference, and which holds no meaning beyond that.

Mike

Yes Mike, You've made this exact statement before, and it makes as little sense now as it did then.

Mike Holmes wrote: Ralph's entire argument relies on the idea that the players in question want to apprieciate the characters of other players.

What your rebuttal points out is only that incoherence is bad - which we all know. That if there's someone in the group who does want to appreciate the other player's characters, that they aren't getting what they want.

But if you have an entire group coherently committed to playing in Immersionist methods, then everybody is supporting everybody else the best they can, and you wouldn't want anything else.

Ralph, is that you no longer like the Immersionist CA. Which is a statement of preference, and which holds no meaning beyond that.

I'm aggreeing with Ralph about Deep Immersion. It's frequently called Immersionism (or Turku school, as the case may be) here in Finland, mainly because just plain immersion has a Finnish word (eläytyminen) and is anyway something all people participating in literary works do all the time. Deep Immersion is a technique, and quite sensibly it's one that really accomodates only a) other immersionists, b) an auteur GM using strong force to keep the immersing players in the drama and c) passive players accepting the GM for other reasons. I have a somewhat personal relationship with the style (as you might have noticed) because it's in the Finnish blood right now and I confront it every time I start playing with anyone not a D&D player.

At the same time I'd like to note that there are other techniques just as narrow. Take hardcore gamism, for example. It will similarly only accomodate other players of the same ilk. Deep immersion is one ideal of play, and I would think that as long as it's recognized it's no worse than others. Just harder to execute to satisfaction. Whatever proselytizing the adherents of the style might do (and indeed do frequently in Finland) is a separate social problem.

In closing I suggest that you all should read the thread once more before continuing. I'm not seeing that much difference in the opinions, just some different emphasis and word use. The best you'll come up with is that Deep Immersion is hard and extreme and that some don't like it.

At the same time I'd like to note that there are other techniques just as narrow. Take hardcore gamism, for example. It will similarly only accomodate other players of the same ilk.

I feel like you guys are getting into an ideological debate here, about personal preferences, with only some tangential connection to the "facts," whatever those are.

So there's always been this tension in roleplaying, between Personal Experience and Personal Expression, between You and the Group, between Immersion and Constructing Narrative. This some of what John gets at in his "Beyond Role and Play" article, actually.

Super-heavy Immersion junkies (like Juhana Pettersson), claim that the degree of removal required for creating a cohesive narrative is unnecessary and barking up the wrong tree. Juhana has claimed (in his "Battle Against Primitivism" article in the same book) that many valuable roleplaying sessions don't make good stories, because it's the individual experiences that are ultimately valuable, not the resulting narrative. He even goes so far that we should move away from "creating stories" in roleplaying, towards creating experiences that are valued for completely different, non-literary reasons.

On the other hand, all the Narrativist junkies (including the bulk of American roleplayers, raised on heavy Sim/Nar hybrids with a focus on "telling stories") think this sounds ridiculous. You want to be able to look back on a session and see how the narrative emerged from the collaborative interaction of the participants. It's not about individual experience, it's about the group's experience as a whole. This inevitably involves stepping out from heavy immersion, to consider things from a distance and make choices based on what's good for the group.

Now, beyond the extremists on both sides, most of us fall somewhere in the middle. We like to be able to personally enjoy what's going on, but we recognise that roleplaying involves being part of a group. I think it is indeed the tension between selfish and selfless impulses, but it does the group no good if everyone is selflessly trying to assist in someone else's experience, because then there would be no direction. People have to alter their play and behavior to be selfish about the things they really care about, but be willing to bend and compromise about the things that others really care about. This is exactly why the Universalis and Nobilis mechanics work so well, because they assign authority based on how much you care about a given thing.

Actually, I'm planning to discuss this topic in my RPGnet column next week, since I'm covering a few articles from the "BRaP" book, including John's. This thread will be a great resource.

Valamir wrote: If you are interested in allowing the other players to appreciate your actions, then you have to give them something to appreciate. This means you must be willing to make the effort to engage with them as human beings at the meta level. This means that from time to time you have to be willing to set aside your own personal desire for immersion.

If you are not willing to set aside your own personal desire for immersion, because doing so would have a negative impact on your own personal enjoyment, then you are putting your welfare above that of others and this is selfish behavior.

Jonathan Walton wrote: Super-heavy Immersion junkies (like Juhana Pettersson), claim that the degree of removal required for creating a cohesive narrative is unnecessary and barking up the wrong tree. Juhana has claimed (in his "Battle Against Primitivism" article in the same book) that many valuable roleplaying sessions don't make good stories, because it's the individual experiences that are ultimately valuable, not the resulting narrative. He even goes so far that we should move away from "creating stories" in roleplaying, towards creating experiences that are valued for completely different, non-literary reasons.

On the other hand, all the Narrativist junkies (including the bulk of American roleplayers, raised on heavy Sim/Nar hybrids with a focus on "telling stories") think this sounds ridiculous. You want to be able to look back on a session and see how the narrative emerged from the collaborative interaction of the participants. It's not about individual experience, it's about the group's experience as a whole. This inevitably involves stepping out from heavy immersion, to consider things from a distance and make choices based on what's good for the group.

Hey John,

I (and all the other people reading this thread and gritting our teeth) would appreciate if you'd stop quoting out of context.

Ralph also said this in that very same post:

Valamir wrote: Immersion does not require tunnel vision. Immersion does not require fanatical adherence to staying in character 100% at all times during play. Immersion does not require the 100% exclusion of all metagame interests. These are features that I've labeled as Deep Immersion, and it is Deep Immersion that I have labeled as selfish.

John Kim wrote: By the way, you use the label "Narrativist" for the performative/storytelling paradigm, but I think that's confusing. I actually agree with Ralph (shockingly :-) that immersion vs storytelling are in GNS terms Techniques, not Creative Agendas.

OK, here we have the central assumption of the "Immersion is catatonia" argument. The argument here is that if a person is immersed, then there is absolutely nothing visible happening for the other players to appreciate. Any visibility of character to other players requires breaking of immersion -- so therefore immersion must mean a sort of catatonic state.

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. On occassion, there are other techniques that can accomplish things better. Using those techniques well takes practice to get it right. Those techniques are not a magic bullet that will solve all problems. Using them inappropriately can be detrimental. None of that is in question.

Valamir wrote: But refusing to use those techniques ever. Refusing to allow them to be used at the table by anyone. Refusing to even consider their use during play. That is selfish behavior, because the only thing that is served by such refusal is the preservation of ones own personal preference.

Valamir wrote: I would bet good money John that you are fully capable of using and appreciating the use of those other techniques when they're called for.
...
I would bet good money that none of the wonderful actual play examples that you frequently comment on here (vinland and water uphill being the foremost ones I remember) were accomplished through 100% immersion 100% of the time by 100% of the players. I would be very surprised to hear I'm wrong in this.

John Kim wrote:
OK, this is a statement which I can agree with. Yes, I agree that there are techniques not available for immersion -- and those techniques can be enjoyed, depending of course on the group and the circumstances. However, like everything else this is a trade-off. There is no absolute standard for "right" and "appropriate" and "inappropriate" and "detrimental". The same game which one person enjoys might be disliked by another.

contracycle wrote:

John Kim wrote:
OK, this is a statement which I can agree with. Yes, I agree that there are techniques not available for immersion -- and those techniques can be enjoyed, depending of course on the group and the circumstances. However, like everything else this is a trade-off. There is no absolute standard for "right" and "appropriate" and "inappropriate" and "detrimental". The same game which one person enjoys might be disliked by another.

I disagree that there is an important trade-off; I do not think that engaging in character exposition entails a significant diminution of the immersed experience. This is necessarily the case if everyone has agreed that immersionism is not catatonia.

contracycle wrote: And thats the crux of the matter: the immersionist player in Johns model is NOT denied the opportunity to use these techniques by their preference or anyone elses; they are not unaware of the presence of other players; they are not unaware of the momentum of story, such as it is.

And BECAUSE they are necessarily aware of these things, it is indeed selfish to sit there and think "I CHOOSE not to express my character".

As you said, players can convey a lot through character action - but to my mind this requires awareness of the necessity of such portrayal. Such activity will necessarily NOT include thiose aspects of the character that the character is not willingly to openly discuss. It also imits comuunication to the verbal. My only argument is that there is a lot else that people communicate through body language and other means, and that these too require - and I do say require - explicit portrayal. Not to do so is a conscious choice, IMO, and one of which I disaprove. Immersionism is not inherently like catatonia, but an immerionist favouring player who turns down every opportunity to express themselves EXCEPT when their characters lips are moving is effectively reproducing that.

Ralph has gotten his point across to me and I think it's a valid tag, though if everyone is in deep immersion its probably more self-ist rather than self-ish, if that makes any sense (the latter being something seen as negative, while the former means they've gotten around atleast the negative connatation)

So I'll ask Ralph now, do you think GM's can do this as well? Not so much deep immmersion into any particular NPC, but into the world as a whole (with NPC's part of that whole).

Perhaps like the GM in this link from actual play http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10782

beingfrank wrote:
Well, I think you need to recognise that there are degrees. All character exposition, all the time, would be a significant diminution of the immersed experience. No character exposition, ever, would, as you say below, be annoying to me, but I'm not sure it happens. How much exposition is going to be a matter of personal, and group, perference. Like how often to take smoking breaks, or any other of a million aspects of roleplaying. quote]

Sure; I would say, rather, that I feel it is an under-utilised technique IMO, partly because of the strict IC doctrine in extant RPG texts. I think many games would benefit from constructing mechanistic scenes which require character exposition as part of their structure.

Ok, so my actual experience of different roleplayers is limited, but I do know a number who self-identify as highly immersonist, and I've never seen anyone play like that. Of course they wouldn't be fun to play with much of the time, but do they really exist?

Lets say, I'm not entirely sure. I can say I have seen players with such a strong commitment to their private agendas that they appeared to resent having to discuss them with the GM. But more specifically for this thread, I suspect we may be talking at cross purposes.

As I read Johns argument, conscious portrayal is anthema to immersion, and any character exposition is an emergent property of character action.

My own position, and Valamirs I believe, is that this is not wholly adequate and it is probable that in the case of Johns game, some non-verbal, non-explicit character expostion was indeed carried out - I feel this is implied if other players can recognise the depth of the character in this immersed mode.

Noon wrote:
Perhaps like the GM in this link from actual play http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10782

So I'll ask Ralph now, do you think GM's can do this as well? Not so much deep immmersion into any particular NPC, but into the world as a whole (with NPC's part of that whole).

Valamir wrote: Yes Mike, You've made this exact statement before, and it makes as little sense now as it did then.

Mike Holmes wrote: Ralph's entire argument relies on the idea that the players in question want to apprieciate the characters of other players.

Ummm right. That is a fundamental assumption. Because its a fundamental assumption of all roleplaying. Its a given.

In an RPG you get to throw basic socialization out the window because of what...years of tradition saying that immersion is the right way to roleplay? Self Absorbtion is not a desireable trait in other forms of socialization. Yet some folks seem more than willing to give such self absorbed behavior a free pass when it occurs around the roleplaying table.

If you are interested in allowing the other players to appreciate your actions, then you have to give them something to appreciate. This means you must be willing to make the effort to engage with them as human beings at the meta level. This means that from time to time you have to be willing to set aside your own personal desire for immersion.

1) Deep Immersion is a technique that is 100% incompatable with any other technique but itself.

2) It has been and in some circles continues to be actively promoted as the right way to play.

3) Groups promoting this style are among the most aggressive at indoctrinating other players to the technique

4) This technique requires and encourages the systematic purging and thwarting of all other techniques from the play group. It is a particularly virulent "preference".

And I have repeatedly said that is is the only way for this play to be functional. So yes, get together with a bunch of like minded folks and be happy.

Of course this isn't really how it happens. Typically its one or two like minded folks and a couple of innocent bystanders who just "want to play" who are then shoved into the mold for the benefit of the other players. This is why Deep Immersion deserves to be specifically singled out.

I've repeatedly said (multiple times in this thread alone) that I am NOT attacking immersion. How many times does this need to be repeated before the straw man dies?

Immersion does not require tunnel vision. Immersion does not require fanatical adherence to staying in character 100% at all times during play. Immersion does not require the 100% exclusion of all metagame interests. These are features that I've labeled as Deep Immersion, and it is Deep Immersion that I have labeled as selfish.

Oh and for the record. Immersion is NOT a Creative Agenda. Any attempt to treat it as a Creative Agenda (as you have attempted to label it above) is summarily dismissed by me. Immersion is a Technique, and must be discussed in the language of Techniques.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Valamir wrote: Yes Mike, You've made this exact statement before, and it makes as little sense now as it did then.

Mike Holmes wrote: Ralph's entire argument relies on the idea that the players in question want to apprieciate the characters of other players.

Ummm right. That is a fundamental assumption. Because its a fundamental assumption of all roleplaying. Its a given.

You're correct. But what I mean to say is that the assumption isn't always that the players want to appreciate the metagame play of the other players. Which seems to be your assumption. Again, nobody is saying that the players don't have metagame goals or rationales, just that they involve enjoying staying in character, and affecting the game only via avatars, and not at all in the metagame.

In an RPG you get to throw basic socialization out the window because of what...years of tradition saying that immersion is the right way to roleplay? Self Absorbtion is not a desireable trait in other forms of socialization. Yet some folks seem more than willing to give such self absorbed behavior a free pass when it occurs around the roleplaying table.

Total non-sequitur. If we assume that the players all prefer Immersion, then they're appreciating that the other players don't cross the line.

Wait, wait. You're saying that we're making up a straw man? I think it is you who is making up a straw man. My confusion was that, at first, you seemed to use Deep Immersion and Immersion interchangably. But if you're saying that there are Immersionists who don't socialize at all, then I'm saying that these people don't actually exist. There are no "Deep Immersionists" as you're labling them.

I mean, sure there are those who don't break character during play, but they socialize before and after. It's like you're saying that being in a theatre group isn't social beause they never stop in the middle of a performance to explain OOC why their character is doing something.

Isn't there appluse at the end, a social apprieciation of the actors staying so well in character? Yes, yes, theatre isn't roleplaying, but can't you see a mode of play in which immersion was valued enough that the social reinforcement only happened during down time?

contracycle wrote:

Mike Holmes wrote: Isn't there appluse at the end, a social apprieciation of the actors staying so well in character? Yes, yes, theatre isn't roleplaying, but can't you see a mode of play in which immersion was valued enough that the social reinforcement only happened during down time?

Yes, but a character on stage who never communicates anything to the audience, never enagges the audience, and merely expects the audience to deduce their mental state from first principles and limited observation is not likely to get any applause.

I should clarify my position here. I am not touting immersion as a superior form of play. I do want to dispel the idea that it is inherently selfish -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't equally interesting possibilities in non-immersive play. Obviously, if the others in the group don't like immersion, it is selfish to engage in it. But if the others in the group do appreciate it (which they may), then it is not selfish.

contracycle wrote: This distinction has been introduced to try to circumvent one of John Kim's defences. JK says that in the immersivist story model, appreciation of the characters identity oustide of passive observation of character action is unimportant and possibly counterproductive. I have suggested that this is not enough and that I as another player expect that player to invest some effort in communicating with me directly, not with my character. This is not to say that I think such players are catatonic and that this is an inherent mode of immersionism - the distinction Valamir is trying to make. Rather I object to the CLAIM that this is unnecessary, as this this seems to advocate catatonia-like play.

contracycle wrote: acting is communication, through word and tone and gesture. John has argued that attention to this is uncessary or counterproductive. This analogy isn't; the problem does not arise in theatre because the trope of character veracity is couteracted by the convention and necessity of communicating with the audience. I think we need to do more of that sort of thing.

John Kim wrote: I am not touting immersion as a superior form of play. I do want to dispel the idea that it is inherently selfish -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't equally interesting possibilities in non-immersive play. Obviously, if the others in the group don't like immersion, it is selfish to engage in it. But if the others in the group do appreciate it (which they may), then it is not selfish.

4) Close Identification
The player consistently and more-or-less continuously emotionally identifies with his PC. However, he is active in meta-game activities such as describing what his character does, responding to changes in scene, passing the chips, consulting rules, and so forth -- which is required for tabletop play. The player is thus frequently verbally communicating in the meta-game about the character, as opposed to purely in-character voice.

I should clarify my position here. I am not touting immersion as a superior form of play. I do want to dispel the idea that it is inherently selfish -- but that doesn't mean that there aren't equally interesting possibilities in non-immersive play.

Thanks Ralph, you did satisfy my curiosity on the original question. But I'd like to ask a suplemental question. It's not questioning the validity of the idea, just asking for more info, so I'm asking here rather than in that new thread. I'll understand if your worn out on the topic and can't get to me though.

Okay, is deep immersion something that is also relative to other players immersion. For example, everyone agrees to a certain amount of immersion (ie, the immerse, then come up for air, look around and immerse again in a certain proportion). I'll give an arbitrary number and say they immerse 50% of the time and that's what they agree to. Now, what if someone there begins immersing 70% of the time. Not so much deep immersion but deeper (than everyone else) immersion.

With the 50% mark, you'll probably miss some tells and things from other players, and some techniques might be closed to you. But you'll still pick up a lot of tells and still be able to use a lot of techniques. But someone who's at 70% or whatever, will have more tells and techniques locked off from them. If the social contract says it should be around the 50% mark but one person takes it to 70%, thus missing more of the happy/unhappy with the game tells from other people and not employing all the techniques others are using, is this the selfish behavior? And is it produced by a relatively deeper immersion than others at the table?

Certainly some of your examples sound sort of like this, where two people for example at the table push hard for deep immersion and the rest of the players are dragged along. But is it possible that true deep immersionists are rare and in such examples those guys are probably pushing a high percentage (perhaps in the ninties or such), while everyone else wants something in the twenties or such.

Or is this a seperate issue? Certainly it ties in with selfishness...these guys are ignoring tells that it's been agreed should be noted, and they are excluding techniques others are using in good faith. But perhaps it's just related. What do you think?

I'm not sure I can answer this. Its such a purely theoretical "what if" exercise, that I don't know if I can relate it to real play. I've never attempted anything like setting a "degree" of immersion intentionally as part of a social contract.

Can you give me an idea of what you as a player would think or do in a game if I were to say "today we'll play 50% immersed instead of 70%"?

I'm thinking that might not be a real possible thing to actually test.

I'm inclined, however, to point out that such behavior is still a violation of the social contract. Your example could just as easily have been "no monty python jokes", or "turn off the cell phones".

I didn't really want to use exact percentages. No one agree's to a particular named percentage in regards to how deep they go and how long they stay there. I used exact numbers so I didn't have to keep using fuzzy 'they like more/less etc etc'. The idea is that some people are comfortable with X amount of immersion and have fun with that. With their fellows they probably muddle around until the find where eveyone is and they stick around that area of immersion. Even people who have never RP'd before have some comfortable level of immersion, even if its zero (pawn stance, I guess).

Basically I was wondering if deeper immersion than agreed to, is the problem. It doesn't have to be 100%, just significantly more than the others.

Ralph wrote: Immerse, come up for air, look around, make a concious effort to adjust your character's priorities based on meta game issues for the group, go back under and immerse again. Immerse all you want. Not selfish.

Ralph wrote:
Immerse, come up for air, look around, make a concious effort to adjust your character's priorities based on meta game issues for the group, go back under and immerse again. Immerse all you want. Not selfish.


Basically I'm suggesting someone who isn't 100% deep immersion, but isn't 'coming up for air' as much as everyone else, significantly less so. Is that a related to or the same selfishness?

So you're left with a situation where the ratio of Immersive to non Immersive techniques could fluctuate legitimately within a game (and also between games where different ratios are more or less appropriate); and your also left with the probablility that different players will be employing different ratios on different cycles from each other.

Noon wrote:
Now, can I drift a bit and ask how this deep immersionist push manifests to your mind. For example, I'm pretty sure I've encountered the idea somewhat in my group and in reading RPG.net posts. But although the idea is there and people would tut tut each other for not being in character 'enough' and the holy grail was some sort of deep immersion, serious questing for that grail never really happened.
...
So how do you see it occuring?

Thanks! :) But do they achieve 100% deep immersion much at all, or is it more a matter of their trying to apply some of the required techniques of deep immersion (note passing, sending people out of the room) but not all the techniques, yet enough to be incoherant with other styles of play? What's your opinion? And thanks for the answers so far. :)

Noon wrote: Thanks! :) But do they achieve 100% deep immersion much at all, or is it more a matter of their trying to apply some of the required techniques of deep immersion (note passing, sending people out of the room) but not all the techniques, yet enough to be incoherant with other styles of play? What's your opinion? And thanks for the answers so far. :)

I don't think that distinction flies. I do think that people immerse to differeing degress - certainly I am aware of having experienced differing degrees in different instances.

But this is incidental to my acknowledgement of metagme, which I think is a perpendicular concern. If the social contract legitises 'squirreling'*, then we have the initial problem of insuficient engagement with other players audience modes. If it does not, and some form of portrayal is mandated, I think the problem goes away.

* squirreling was IIRC a Dilbert term referring to an employee who pursues a strategy of whitholding vital information from others in order to make themselves indispendible.

Thanks Ralph, that is pretty much what I was asking about. It seems like a zealotism for deep immersion.