Over in the Creator or Fan? thread, an idea came up that was discussed (barely) regarding Immersion and whether or not it is healthy. I said something about the idea as a counterpoint to the one being espoused on RPGnet, when the above thread was brought up, but I've also been thinking about it in relation to some of the other ideas tossed around, and Clinton and John's hard-eyed stares over the same issue.

I'm quoting Clinton here, and the statement in contention was thus:

The people who flip their pancake of reason every time theory or "meta-gaming" (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the bubble of immersion broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative.

Sooner or later, adulthood comes along. And what was childish games has to fall aside or be examined. Examination and then creation produces art, plain and simple.

greyorm wrote:
You see, I notice that John Kim wore in the same thread how Scandinavian LARP theorists are very aware of what it is they are doing (the theory and practice of it) and what they want to see happening as players, and yet they are hardcore Immersive players. They are aware of their reasons for Immersing, techniques to do such, and so forth, and it does not interefere with their ability to do so (it heightens it, in fact).

So another question would be, given that it can and is done without causing the indicated problems, why do other Immersives cross themselves upon even the suggestion of doing this, being that it doesn't cause problems? (I'm thinking specifically of John Morrow's statement to this effect; though I recognize he may not have meant it that way. I'm hoping he is reading this and can take the time to respond.)

Where do these ideas come from, what are they supported by, do they serve any useful purpose, how does one communicate the idea with someone opposed to the idea? For me, what are the benefits and pitfalls to not understanding one's play? And conversely, for those on the other side of this fence, what are the benefits and pitfalls of understanding one's play?

Huh. I could be misreading it entirely, but my take is that it is essentially impossible to maintain immersion throughout the course of a session. Something will always happen in the game that will either cause you to break immersion to deal with it or to just ignore such things as they didn't happen.

Here's an example that a participant posted to the Burning Wheel boards a few weeks ago:

Sample from an actual play. A character that our group of characters had met before (but not for long, he was still an outsider) took part in the bullying of a merchant. The goal was to intimidate him, but the character in question used lethal force, resulting in an unwanted situation for the group.

My character would naturally turn the other to the militia. As a player, I wouldn't want to break the game because my friend thought that stabbing repetedly someone was a good way to ensure his cooperation to follow us until he could be interrogated.

What should I have done?

My first question, and my answer to the rest depends on this, is how did you, not your character, feel about what happened? Did you feel that the other player had taken the game into a place you didn't like? Or did you find it interesting but were unsure how to deal with it based on the character you were playing?

This is a very important distinction. If it was the former, this is not something you could solve in the context of the game. Having your character turn his character in would not fix the situation.

If it were the latter, and I wasn't sure what to do, I think I would have asked to pause the game and raised the issue with everyone else. "In this situation, I feel like my character would do this, but I think that could ruin the game. What do you guys think?"

It seems really weird to someone who's never done it before, I know. But doing this is OK. Gaming is a shared imagined activity. It requires everyone at the table to work together to shape it. Sometimes, in order to keep it going, you have to step outside of it and help each other patch up the illusion so that you remain on the same page.

Kublai's suggestion may be the right approach. The GM might also be helpful and provide evidence right there and then that the merchant was a Bad GuyTM.

But my point is that doing something destructive to the game in order to preserve the fidelity of the character isn't going to make the game more fun for anyone. So work together and find some way around it.

greyorm wrote:
Now see, I didn't get that out of Clinton's statement at all. I can see how it might be read that way, but I don't think that's the point that was being made. If I read him right, Clinton's talking about examination, and the avoidance thereof, as being childish. Not that Immersives were a bunch of scardey children, but that those who failed to examine their own Immersive style as a style and understand it, because they are denying their own forward progress (not towards "less immersion" or a different style, but towards "deeper/better immersion" or "cognizant immersion"). First off, I'm checking to see if I'm right about my reading or not (Clinton?).

Clinton,

Nope, I don't see it, certainly not in the general case. Maybe it depends on the type of activity or the amount. If friends get together to play basketball or ultimate on a regular basis, how could that be "unexamined and therefore unwholesome" or "examined and wholesome"? I'm trying to read your comments charitably but "unwholesome" and "you've got a big problem on your hands" are getting in the way.

I think I get what Clinton is getting at. It is a tricky thing to get across.

Unexamined play is icky because it's just habitual, ritualized repetition of a familiar pattern to get the same reward the same way every time. The monkey has learned that if it pushes the lever, it gets the cookie. So it sits there pushing the lever, over and over and over and over. Eventually, the monkey will push the lever even without the cookie.

Is that the point you're pushing at, Clinton?

Hiya,

Elliott, I suggest that your basketball players are examining their play in the sense that Clinton is describing. They might be doing so in terms of how to play better, in terms of whether they (individually) are enjoying themselves, in some other terms, or any combination.

Or rather, more accurately, I'm presenting as my world-view that many real people who do play pickup basketball are really doing this.

Best,
Ron

I suggest that there is a major difference between "examination", as proposed by Clinton, and "deep analysis". If you are really into the theory and analysis of a subject, it might well get in the way of "simply enjoying". Like the script author who can't watch a movie without unwillingly paying attention to the techniques the script uses, and how well or badly they are applied. He might still be amazed by a good movie, maybe even more amazed than he would have been without his theoretical knowledge and analytic skill, but he just sees it with different eyes.

Please don't tell me I'm the only one who sees his games with different eyes. Since I have started to dig into RPG theory, I can't help consciously analizing my play. That doesn't mean I don't have fun any more when gaming. I have had some great sessions thanks to getting into RPG theory. But yeah, I guess it means that the "deep character immersion" type of play gets harder, because I can't help looking beyond the SIS at the stuff going on there.

Why do I say that? Because I think it partly validates the point that theory might break the bubble of immersion.

- Frank

Clinton wrote:
Much like that, examination of the RPG process is necessary to it being a fulfilling and wholesome activity for adults. I can't believe I'm saying this, but, yeah, I think unexamined play of RPGs is an unwholesome activity. If you're getting together and doing it just for the sake of doing it, then you've got a big problem on your hands.

And that's the problem I see with some people who get all up in arms about their immersion. It seems they're playing that way just to play that way. There's no other point to it. (Or, better said, there is a point, and they refuse to examine it.)

Ron, that may be--the basketball players may be examining their play. But I find it easier to imagine that even if they don't examine their play, the whole thing is perfectly wholesome because playing basketball is purely recreational for them--it isn't the main point of their lives.

Now roleplaying is different from basketball, so that might not be all that's going on. But then I think that difference is worth examining.

Hey, Marco,

I think one thing that needs to be separated here is "people who are opposed to critical examination during the activity because it upsets immersion" and "people who are opposed to critical examination at any time". I'm pretty sure Clinton has restricted his judgment to the latter, not that I entirely agree with what he's said.

Hi,

About a month or so ago, the idea struck me, what if people looked at immersiveness the same way they tend to look at rules- as a tool to be used or abandoned according to what is fun?  I think the big issue we look at when it comes to immersiveness is that it has been often touted as the end-goal of play, when in fact it is just one technique we can use or drop according to the game and taste.

Chris

Hello,

I will start by saying that "wholesome" is not a term I tend to use much, or to think about except in terms of its extreme opposite. I'm skeptical that anything we discuss can ever be settled as wholesome or unwholesome close to the border between them.

I can, however, speak to whether how one participates in an activity (a) contributes to peace of mind and (b) leads others to continue to invite the person.

And I think, in those terms, that the (for instance) basketball or ultimate player who fails to examine his or her play in the sense that Clinton is talking about, is very likely to fail at (a) or (b) or at both.

Elliott, probably without intending to, you're pulling an argument fast-one when you state,

even if they don't examine their play, the whole thing is perfectly wholesome because playing basketball is purely recreational for them--it isn't the main point of their lives

Big effin' ups to Ron's last post.

Others are reading me wrong, so I'm going to re-state clearly.

First of all, let me define "wholesome." Unlike Ron, I do use this term a lot. I tend to judge things in moral terms.

An activity is wholesome if it has a purpose that positively contributes. (Contributes to what? Mainly, your own life. But it could positively contribute to anything.)

So, a group of people who sit down and play a RPG each week where they kill kobolds and get stress relief and relaxation out of that, and know that they do - that's awesome. Good. Wholesome.

People who sit down each week and play an RPG and never once know - as a group, mind you - why they get together - that's not wholesome.

We clear on the definition? I hope so, because it seems self-evident to me.

Most activities I can think of, the participants know why they do them. Role-playing seems to me to have this problem where many participants don't know why they do it. Argue all you like, but we've got a lot of social dysfunction in our hobby. Find me at a convention sometime and I can point it out. I believe we've all seen it. That dysfunction comes from somewhere. I'm perfectly willing to discuss where it comes from, and maybe I'm wrong on it, but right now, I'm the one trying to figure it out.

So, my thought is this. If you cannot answer the following questions, and your current role-playing group cannot, your activity is reaching a level of unwholesomeness.

• Why do I play role-playing games?
• Why am I playing the one I am currently?
• Why did I choose these people to play with?
• How do we, as a group, realize this reason we're playing? ("Realize," as in "how do we make it happen?)

Ron, I appreciate the clarification, which knocks off a whole chunk of obvious unwholesomeness, leaving the interesting stuff for examination.

But now I am wondering if Clinton hasn't defined the problem out of existence. Is any answer to "why do I play RPGs" okay, as long as the question is asked? And what if criticial examination never gets beyond the basics of the four questions?

ewilen wrote:
But now I am wondering if Clinton hasn't defined the problem out of existence. Is any answer to "why do I play RPGs" okay, as long as the question is asked? And what if criticial examination never gets beyond the basics of the four questions?

Hey Elliott,

Hell, man, I don't know. Those are what you might call Kozmik Kwestions that any thinking adult has to consider about what he or she does. Kind of beyond the scope of the Forge.

I do know I enjoyed this thread very much and greatly appreciate the effort everyone's made to understand one another.

Best,
Ron

cross-posted with Clinton

A few quick thoughts on the whole thing:

1) When analyzing both pro- and contra-immersionist critique, it is best to realize that both sides are normally utterly unable to conceive the other side's viewpoints. Think atheist vs. people who claim to have had religious experiences. The immersive state is essentially nondescibable. You either have experienced what amounts to a (perceived) loss of "self" or the sense of self for a finite duration.

2) Add to this that both sides of the split (I personally also really think it's an either/or situation) have plenty of people who are not very mature, i.e. are playing for the retained-adolescent-attitude reasons mentioned before.

3) Furthermore, like John said, there exists a vocal group of gamers who oppose all deeper examination of their hobby, whether it's personal (immersive) exploration or academic research to it. Some of them are immature (the loudest persons usually are), others want to preserve the sense of wonder they see essential to the role-playing experience.

4) Add to this the creative-agenda -like desires of other players, and their potential tendency to hold on them as fanatically. (I've seen narrativists and gamists who are so intense they'll make any Turku-school fanatic seem easy by comparison.)

Therefore, the biggest problem is really in the fact that too many playing groups have attendees who represent more than one perspective /and/ are unable to make those views co-exist. And when moved to any public forum, the problem expands exponentially.

Despite what Frank suspected above, I think that immersionism has no correlation whatsoever to things such as willingness to accept role-playing analysis. All my experiences as a gamer and all the academic field research I've done seems to point towards the following: immersion is just an enjoyment method like all the others. It's simply more character-centric, more intense, and thus more unpredictable from a group-benefit viewpoint. The big problems come from players whose opposition to compromise /masquerades behind/ immersion, anti-immersion, gamism or anti-intellectualism, etc. Those are the people who are actually IMO doing the complaining.

-Jiituomas

Ron wrote:
In the hobby of role-playing, such a behavior is often held up as an ideal. And Clinton thinks it stinks, and I agree with him.

Does everyone "into immersion" fit this profile. Hell, I don't know. A lot of them do; probably a lot don't. Last year, at GenCon, Ben Lehman was unsettled by critical comments I made about the social maladjustments of many participants. He thought I was "picking on the geeks." Later, he contacted me to say that he'd realized what I meant - that folks who were enthusiastic but awkward were fantastic people, and playing with them is fun (and similarly, that someone who suffers from clinical obesity is perfectly reasonably inclined toward sedentary and imaginative hobbies). But that folks who stuck with the hobby out of a hamster-wheel like obsession with their own adolescence (including college in many cases) were plain fucked in terms of (a) and (b) - they were unhappy and unsuccessful with their participation despite their intensity, and it showed in every body movement, in tone of voice, and in every victimized signal they gave off with every sentence.

John wrote:
The person whom Clinton cited as an example was John Morrow, which I disagree with.  I don't expect naming names will work very well, though it may be worth trying.  But without some indication of common experience, it seems hard to discuss.  Perhaps we could discuss examples of text which demonstrates the dysfunctional ideal which you're talking about? 

NOTE: Edited to correct reference to Clinton which was actually by greyorm

Sorry if I'm misrepresented.  Really, I'd be happier with naming names in this regard, because otherwise I can't tell if we're comparing apples and oranges.  Anyhow, what I was thinking of was:

greyorm wrote:
So another question would be, given that it can and is done without causing the indicated problems, why do other Immersives cross themselves upon even the suggestion of doing this, being that it doesn't cause problems? (I'm thinking specifically of John Morrow's statement to this effect; though I recognize he may not have meant it that way. I'm hoping he is reading this and can take the time to respond.)

Hi,

I've observed before how many gamers share patterns with abuse victims.  At first I had thought this was simply a side-effect of "geek culture" or something of the sort, but here's some things worth thinking about:

You have an activity which (many games):
- discourage person to person discussion of the activity itself
- discourage communication amongst each the participants
- throws judgementalism on that ("Talking about it is bad")
- expects you to be able to perform coordinated activities without communication
- throws judgementalism on that as well ("You're not following my leads!")
- expects long-term, even life-time commitments
- puts all the power into one person's hands

If you've known anyone who's grown up in a shame based culture, has been raised by judgemental parents, been drawn into a cult, been in a codependent relationship or a domestic violence situation- a lot of the gamer tendencies make perfect sense (passive agressive, fear of doing the "wrong thing", turtling).

Honestly, we can play immersionist, non-immersionist, 1 GM, GM-ful, short term or long term, provided we are:
- honest about what we feel about the activity (Clinton's questions)
- communicate with each other about that ("Meta")
- Nix the judgementalism of "good/bad" roleplaying.

What we have seen, is traditionally the marriage of obsession with Immersion, injunctions against discussion or feedback amongst the group, control, fear, & power issues as a central concept ("Chicken Littling"), and a whole lot of judgemental bullying of other people.

Immersion itself isn't the problem- it's obssession with Immersion plus all the other unhealthy crapola that has been promoted as the standard of play under its guise.

Chris

Hiya,

I'm seeing a great deal to learn from everyone's input although I don't have time right now to list all the connections I see among them. Only time for a response posted to me directly.

John, I don't see a 1:1 correlation between all these negative things and immersion either. However, I do see a connection that we might do well to pay attention to. When these negative things are exhibited, then immersion is a common candidate to be utilized as a cover (just as Jiituomas described).

I stated that as carefully as I could, in order to make sure that I'm not stating the converse - I'm not stating that when immersion is valued, that such negative things must be hiding under it. The commonality of the negative case, though, is at least my perception. Others' perceptions may certainly differ. Perhaps I am idealizing the hack-and-slashers when I think of (or perceive) them as often rather satisfied, by comparison.

To change the subject slightly, I'm distancing myself from the parent John Morrow thread at RPG.net entirely. I'm only interested in the topic as raised by Raven, here and now in this thread. And in general, I agree with you that naming names (which sort of translates in my mind to pointing fingers, really) isn't too useful.

So where do we go from here? Me, I'd like to see as much honest and reflective posting in Actual Play as possible. I'd like to see accounts from many years ago, from "my last game before I quit," and from last night, and everything in between. I'd like to see some local, thread-specific definitions for what's meant by "immersion" so we can stay on track for each thread.

I'm pretty confident we can get somewhere after a little while of such an effort. Perhaps people can read this thread and be confident that there are a number of minds, right here, who are very interested in this topic and who are also committed to understanding one another about it as we go. That confidence will prompt better reflection and description, and with any luck a positive cycle of communication and insight can develop.

Best,
Ron

Well, I'm happy to stand up and be counted as someone who enjoys the immersionist experience. I have been trying to post about my experiences in this regard at Origins but it's very difficult to articulate. The situation was that 6 of us were playing Call of Cthulhu with 4 GMs. Very early in the game we started acting our parts, by which I mean moving around, only talking in character and expressiing emotions (or at least the simulacra thereof) directly.

I think it would be interesting to talk to the players again about their experiences in that game as I'm pretty sure not everyone got into it as much as I did. In fact by playing this way, I'm sure that at least one player was disadvantaged. He had a WTF expression for at least some of the game. On the other hand, nine others seemed to have the times of their lives. So, I'll try to collect some evidence and I'll report back here when I have.

This is all interesting and sensible stuff. However, I don't really see how it relates to the initial quote:

The people who flip their pancake of reason every time theory or "meta-gaming" (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the bubble of immersion broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative.

Sooner or later, adulthood comes along. And what was childish games has to fall aside or be examined. Examination and then creation produces art, plain and simple.

In defence of immersion, you might say:

"The people who flip their pancake of reason every time immersion (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the pipe-dream of theory broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative."

Flippant perhaps, but I think that until immersion is given some value, or some effort is made into understanding what that value is, you're not going to get very far in weighing it up against theory.

To a certain extent, I think the battle might be some kind of debate over what is public and what is private. Narrative gaming and its theory seems to be a public exposition of what goes on privately in immersion, addressing premise and all that stuff.

If roleplaying is to be a social game then no, you can't just keep it to yourself but I don't think that's what immersionists are after. The hope is that, well for me at least, that meaning can be conveyed through showing (acting it might be called) rather than telling (the "what's at stake" in Dogs for example). It's a less direct method and fraught with all the usual problems of human communication but that's in some way what makes it interesting.

I do object to the use of "childish" in general reference to immersion but I think it's in the spirit of debate so I'm happy to talk around it. As for Actual Play examples, there might be one here.

Frank wrote: There is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?

Frank wrote:
This is all interesting and sensible stuff. However, I don't really see how it relates to the initial quote:

The people who flip their pancake of reason every time theory or "meta-gaming" (whatever the heck that is) gets brought up: they don't want the bubble of immersion broken. But it's going to get broken if you're healthy: you can't keep that up; you'll either be fooling yourself that it's happening, or driving yourself disassociative.

Sooner or later, adulthood comes along. And what was childish games has to fall aside or be examined. Examination and then creation produces art, plain and simple.

There is no reason why you should not, on the one hand, be able to "examine" your immersive play the way it has been specified in this thread, and on the other hand maintain the statement that "theory or 'meta-gaming' break the bubble of immersion". You are not saying that "theory or 'meta-gaming'" is the same as "examination", are you? Am I the only one who thinks this discussion is off-track?

I am new here and a bit nervous about contributing to the discussion, but this thread touches on something that is a central concern of mine now that I have embarked on serious analysis of RPG theory.

I consider myself a strongly immersive player, so much so that in order to feel 'fulfilled' as a person, I must be in some way engaged in a game which caters to this need.  I am certainly not without a 'life' outside the game, but an immersive gaming experience is a component of my happiness.  I could make a few suggestions as to why this might be, but I don't know why conclusively.

There are things -- important things -- that certain rituals do for the psyche which lose their power when they are exhaustively scrutinized and explained.  When, for instance, we fully comprehend that funerals are actually for ourselves and not the dead (since the dead can clearly no longer appreciate it) there is something lost in the process which causes grief to stick. 

I am extremely ambivalent about this.  Clearly, it should not mean quashing analysis of this, or any, subject; yet I am afraid of coming away with *less* than I had to begin with.  Dorothy's position is strengthened when she reveals the man behind the curtain.  I am not certain that this is universally the case.

Hello, and welcome!!

That's another one of those Great Questions, isn't it, Froglar?

And which no one can answer for you. Your example about funerals, for instance, will carry no argumentative weight for someone who does understand funerals analytically, yet also grieves at funerals and benefits from them. To you, his grief/catharsis "must" be weakened or diminished in some way ... but that's your perception alone.

And yet, no one can turn around and deny you your particular need or wish to leave the curtain up, either. I'd be surprised if anyone in this thread, even Clinton, is telling anyone else how they must start playing, right now. We're sharing some rather spiky viewpoints, and I think some of us are benefiting only because we can understand what is being said, not because we expect to come to a consensus. Your view is certainly welcome in the mix.

I invite you to include your real name, either as a signature, or a "sig" in the internet sense, or by changing your username, if you'd like.

Best,
Ron

Welcome Froglar,

FroglarTBGE wrote: There are things -- important things -- that certain rituals do for the psyche which lose their power when they are exhaustively scrutinized and explained.  When, for instance, we fully comprehend that funerals are actually for ourselves and not the dead (since the dead can clearly no longer appreciate it) there is something lost in the process which causes grief to stick.

First off, excuse me for starting the thread and then not contributing to it, I spend most of yesterday fighting The Head Cold That Would Not Die[sup]TM[/sup] and was thus both preoccupied and incoherent. I do want to say that this discussion thus far is incredible, and want to thank everyone for participating.

Froglar asked the very question I was, perhaps better than I did as well. The question, I think that relates back to both Frank's comments about validating "the point that theory might break the bubble of immersion" and "being more amazed...without his theoretical knowledge" that I simply could not agree with on a logical or experiential level, and then Jiituomas' considerations about gamers who "...oppose all deeper examination of their hobby...[because they] want to preserve the sense of wonder they see essential to the role-playing experience." Jiituomas is correct in that there are people who feel this way about these things, but I could not agree with Frank's assertions about why that is.

Christian, I think, has just nailed the problem for me, the "Why doesn't it always pan out? Why isn't it always bigger and better?" question that has been dragging me along for this ride.

Follow-through. Or rather, what you are able to do with the understanding.

Having understanding is one thing, being able to utilize it to your advantage is another. I humbly submit that gaining the former does not automatically beget the latter. Even with understanding, one may be trapped by not knowing what to do with that understanding, by not knowing how to apply it purposefully.

So, when we say theory or understanding is helpful because it allows one to examine the issue more deeply, from a broader perspective, that is only half the picture. If you don't know how to make use of that broader material, then there arises a problem. You see all these new facts that do not fit into the pre-existing worldview, which deny or make problematic the former view, and you have nowhere to put them that will make the new view as usable as the old. There is a clash between what was working for you, and the knowledge that it cannot work for you in that form any longer because of the shifted perspective.

How do you move from "I want to grieve", to understanding why you are grieving and using that knowledge to make the grieving process work for you? To the invisible second step of understanding.

With Immersion: how do you Deep Immerse and yet retain the ability to utilize learned Immersion techniques or game theory? We know it can be done, so what are the tools that allow one to do that, rather than the understanding of the situation breaking the Immersive bubble?

What tools can we produce that will allow someone to make that step, from understanding to using that understanding?

Ummm ...

But Raven, is there any obligation to "make" anyone do that?

Whoops. I just realized you didn't say that, you said "permit" to "make that step."

All done then.

Best,
Ron

xenopulse wrote:
Welcome Froglar,

FroglarTBGE wrote: There are things -- important things -- that certain rituals do for the psyche which lose their power when they are exhaustively scrutinized and explained.  When, for instance, we fully comprehend that funerals are actually for ourselves and not the dead (since the dead can clearly no longer appreciate it) there is something lost in the process which causes grief to stick.

I just posted about something related to this by opening this thread.

In short, I think the loss comes about when the initial mystique is replaced with understanding of how things work--but something bigger and better can be gained if you follow through to the application of the newly discovered knowledge.

If I make this realization about funerals, I also come to know my grief; i.e., the fact that I am not sad for this other person, but for my own loss, enables me to deal with it more purposefully. I realize that the funeral also brings the family together for mutual support and I make the most of it.

To bring it back to roleplaying games, the mystique that gets lost when individual awareness of play comes about can be replaced by the power of the whole group playing with a purpose, aware of where they're going and how to get there.

When I was a kid we used to go and play the coin-ops at the corner store.  One of my buddies was very very good at these and would 'clock' them routinely.  But it was impoossible to speak to him while he was playing.  I mean really, really impossible, to the point that if you really needed to interrupt he would have to be bodily removed before you would appear on his radar.

To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment.  At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task.  Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.

And that, IME, is why immersion and analyticaly techniques cannot co-exist in actual play.  I don't think there will be any problem using them at some point in a session of play overall, but certainly IME, being asked to break immersion in order to do certain things, particularly analytical things, would be just like someone interrupting you as you read a book.  Or someone watching a film with you who keeps asking you to explain what is going on.

contracycle wrote:
To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment.  At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task.  Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.

This is a great topic and I hope me commenting 3 days later is not going to open what might be considered a dead subject? First I wanted to address contracycle’s comments here:

contracycle wrote:
When I was a kid we used to go and play the coin-ops at the corner store.  One of my buddies was very very good at these and would 'clock' them routinely.  But it was impoossible to speak to him while he was playing.  I mean really, really impossible, to the point that if you really needed to interrupt he would have to be bodily removed before you would appear on his radar.

To an extent this is merely a very intense form of the "imaginative commitment" necessary for most forms of entertainment.  At another level it was a full investment in the immediate task.  Either way, it includes a degree of tunnel-vision; your joy in the imaginative experience of reading a book can be interrupted by external factors intruding into your space, forcing you to abandon that imaginative creation and address the real world.

And that, IME, is why immersion and analyticaly techniques cannot co-exist in actual play.  I don't think there will be any problem using them at some point in a session of play overall, but certainly IME, being asked to break immersion in order to do certain things, particularly analytical things, would be just like someone interrupting you as you read a book.  Or someone watching a film with you who keeps asking you to explain what is going on.

ADGBoss wrote:
Whenever you pick up the dice, make a roll, do rock paper scissors, or take a drink of water even if you are thirsty and your character isn’t, that is in a sense breaking the bubble of immersion. You accept that some activities are acceptable in the course of the game / session even though they are not technically inside of the bubble. I would assume, that if someone needed a rules clarification, that he or she could also take a moment to ask a question? If that is the case and these are acceptable behaviors for an immersionist, then I see no reason why stopping for a moment and asking “hmm what’s going on here” would be any more lethal to immersion then a bathroom break.  If someone is not on board with what’s going on then it only makes sense to stop and examine it for a moment and make sure everyone gets on board.

I'm not sure that rolling the dice does necessarily "break the bubble of immersion".

For a start, I don't see immersion as such a selfish thing as a bubble. Roleplaying is still a group activity and I don't think that you can easily immerse on your own. You need something to play against and if everyone else staunchly talks out of character, in the third person, or just refuses to engage with your in character personalisation then you're pretty much stuffed as far immersion goes. Immersion seems to me to be a group activity not that of one person.

But once you are using immersive play techniques, in a group that accepts and uses them, I've not found it so hard to step in and out of character to do things such as roll dice or go to the toilet.

One of the reasons is that if everyone else is immersing then the immersive environment persists if some people drop out of character. This is pretty common in LARPs where asides to the ref are OOC. The fact that the majority, or at least a quorum, of players stay in character is enough to give you a reference point to rejoin the game in character. The important thing to remember here, for immersive gamers, is to keep your OOC comments directed at the ref rather than other players.

Another reason is that the "bubble" doesn't burst that quickly. You can maintain the emotional state of your character whilst doing something else. It's like when you get a phone call whilst with friends. You can talk quite seriously on the phone whist still maintaining the jokey friendly atmosphere with your friends.

I'm still not sure what makes theory and immersion incompatible. How does one theorise whilst playing?

GB wrote:
I'm still not sure what makes theory and immersion incompatible. How does one theorise whilst playing?

So the theorising doesn't actually take place whilst gaming but afterwards?

For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance, and possibly much less to do with game structure. Are we talking at cross purposes, after all none of the three GNS chimneys has much to say explicitly about performance.

Can one be a gamist, narrativist or simulationist immersionist?

Huh?

GB wrote:
For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance...

Simon wrote:
Huh?

GB wrote:
For an immersionist I imagine much of this would focus around 2 things, internal representation (did I get the character right, did he react in a feasible way) and external characterisation (did I put my internal state across to the others, did I catch the nuance of their perfomance correctly). After all, immersionism is all about performance...

Thats totally not what I guess immersion was about - it's not about "did I represent the character right" but it is about "Did I feel and think *as* the character" (paraphrasing John Morrow on RPG.Net forums)

As such, there is no theorising "Did I get it right" because if you immerse, you have got it right.

And as immersion appears to be a perception thing, then only you will know.

ADGBoss wrote:
I am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing.  Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way?

ADGBoss wrote: I am certianly no expert on acting but if one akins Immersion to Acting then I do not see how there can be no theorizing.  Actors are certianly critical of themselves and seek to improve their art, right? Could an immersionist not "think and feel AS the character" better or in a more meaningful way? This may be sidetracking the deiscussion a bit but I would think that any excersie worth doing is worth leveling a critical eye at, either during or after the activity is over.

GB wrote:
I'm not sure that rolling the dice does necessarily "break the bubble of immersion".

James wrote: Question then becomes: are certain kinds of thinking about play the kind of activity you can background? Is this true for all immersive play? Is it just that people, unfamiliar with thinking about gaming a certain way, have a hard time keeping it out of the foreground and will find it gets easier with practice? I've heard immersion described as requiring double-think: one part of the brain processes the character's emotional state, the other handles the game-table stimuli. Difficult or unfamiliar things happening at the game table may force a shift.