Topic: immersive authorship (split)
Started by: Alan
Started on: 9/23/2002
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/23/2002 at 5:00am, Alan wrote:
immersive authorship (split)
[Since this message has been promoted to a thread lead, I thought I edit it for focus.]
I believe there's innate tension between the processes that create dramatic structure and those that create immersive character experiences.
I compare this to the process of writing a novel, where I have a number of concerns: making the story "work", giving the characters life, and keeping myself interested in the project.
In actual composition, many details, and especially character reactions are created on the fly - for me it's a process of switching back and forth between Actor stance and Author/Director stance. And I've also got to entertain myself, so I'm the audience too.
What I would like to see in an RPG is a mechanic for guiding the dramatic evolution of play, while allowing players both authorial power and immersive experience.
Has anyone seen a mechanic like this? InSpectres seems to have several elements: a defined framework of story stages, and a number of "Job dice" the group has to earn before the story can end.
Any other ideas or examples out there?
- Alan
On 9/23/2002 at 9:47am, contracycle wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
I'm also inclined to seequite a big difference between Actor and Immersion. As I may have mentioned before, I had to retire a character becuase that characters thought-patterns lead to a series of options all of which were impossible or suicidal. I could not and did not "re-vision" the character, or impose anything into the game world, to resolve that problem. I had to retiure the character and find a new vantage point - a new character - from which to view the problem.
On 9/23/2002 at 2:25pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
Hi there,
The two preceding posts were added to one to the immersive authorship thread from July 2001. I've split it off to maintain the original thread in its historical position.
(Alan, check out the Forge Guidelines in the Site Discussion section to see some, well, guidelines about resurrecting old threads. Forge regulars, when you see a two-page thread blossom into existence, take a peek at the dates, OK? Self-moderation, self-moderation ...)
But hey, the new discussion is open right here, so go for it - although do recognize that 14 months of discussion has occurred about some of these issues since those older posts were written.
Best,
Ron
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 315
On 9/25/2002 at 4:35am, Alan wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
Thanks Ron.
BTW. I've edited my initial post in this thread to be more RPG-relevant.
I'm really interested in mechanism for shaping a largely player-driven creation. I realize that bringing players in on the goal is an important step, but, I think it also lowers the sense of wonder for players. So, I'm looking for mechanics.
Suggestions would be welcome.
- Alan
On 9/25/2002 at 5:04am, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: immersive authorship (split)
Alan wrote: What I would like to see in an RPG is a mechanic for guiding the dramatic evolution of play, while allowing players both authorial power and immersive experience.
Has anyone seen a mechanic like this?
Any other ideas or examples out there?
I've been trying to do something very similar with my Ratio/Star Odyssey game system, where PCs are starship crew. It's intended to allow immersive play, but allow players to substantially add to the game on the fly just as a GM might (Star Odyssey has no GM). I'm unsure if those powers are authorial or directorial, but they are GM functions. It's also intended to prevent suspension of disbelief, and allow audience (the players and onlookers) surprise, as per the closely related TV shows. It does this by keeping reasons for events undetermined, until the players decide what those reasons are as the characters "discover" those reasons.
On 9/25/2002 at 1:40pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
Hi Alan,
In order to address your questions, I'll have to request a definition of "immersion" from you that we can use in this thread.
As you've probably picked up from my essay, I don't include "immersion" as a technical term. We've hammered at it a few times here at the Forge, and I still think it's one of the least amenable or useful terms in role-playing discussions. People seem to combine personal (and unstated) definitions with very strong emotional commitments to those definitions. Therefore the word is used for multiple different, often contradictory concepts, and the users become defensive when they perceive their personal uses to be contradicted or unappreciated.
I've received several emails from people who encounter my essay and are very angry about immersion - to them, it's (a) or (b) or (c), and they are upset that I'm not using the term in precisely that way as a central part of my model.
So anyway, I'm happy to talk with you about the various issues and so forth, but if you could lay out - with examples - what you mean by "immersion," it would help a lot. (And folks, whatever Alan says, goes, for purposes of this thread.)
Best,
Ron
On 9/25/2002 at 2:59pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
Alan wrote: I'm really interested in mechanism for shaping a largely player-driven creation. I realize that bringing players in on the goal is an important step, but, I think it also lowers the sense of wonder for players. So, I'm looking for mechanics.
I think the basic model is the "training montage" idea - that the player is "licensed" to carry out authorship in a box. IME, when very close to the character, trying to author to far leads to confusion as too many things are based onm perceptions, interpretations and probabilities. I see this as "£colouring in" rather than creating; actual creation that was not bounded would be problematic for me.
On 9/25/2002 at 4:29pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
contracycle wrote: that the player is "licensed" to carry out authorship in a box.
I think that should become a well-worn phrase. "Authorship in a box" is indeed the solution to many of these problems. I think that people often make the assumption that mechanics that endow Autorship have to be wide open. Even as open as the InSpecres resolution. They do not have to be. Even InSpectres, as noted, has the box of the "mission" format. Well laid out in advance. My point is that such boxes, the limits placed on Authorship seem to be the solution to the question of how to create Immersion with Author mechanics. (For those unawares, this has long been a subject of great interest to me).
My favorite example of such an "Authorship Box" (I see a computer window open every time I imagine that phrase), is CharGen. In almost every system, creating your character is done to "create a character you want to play". As opposed to, say, only getting to choose things that the character would likely have some choice over like education, etc. Certainly the choice of a level of say Intelligence of a character is not much his choice. As such that's part of the CharGen "Authoring Box".
Anyhow, note how such selections can be distinctly Simulationist? I choose a high Intelligence stat such that I will be a more believable Wizard. Thus such a box can be distinctly designed to Immerse in the character. He becomes internally consistent to the player, and therefore something he can Immerse in (assuming I have the general gist of the poster's definition correct).
Sure such a CharGen box can also be used for Gamist or Narrativist goals. Indeed most CharGen systems are fairly similar in nature across designs aimed at all three modes. But perhaps we can see what sort of boxes tend to produce more Immersive feel, and alter the CharGen box to provide more Immersion potential.
Now the question is, what sort of boxes work to promote Immersion? I'm going to think on this one and post back later.
Mike
On 9/25/2002 at 5:31pm, Alan wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Alan,
In order to address your questions, I'll have to request a definition of "immersion" from you that we can use in this thread.
Hm. "Immersion" seems to define intensity, rather than quality. I think I was using hyperbole, and may have to find a different term. I'll lay out my thinking here:
I theorize that the kind of questions received and the tasks performed by the player attract their attention to different kinds of activities. For example, rolling dice attracts attention to the real world, while being asked what a specific character wants to do tends to focus their thoughts on being an imagary persona. Having a game mechanic that asks "what would you like to have happen to your character?" attracts attention to a wider range of issues.
Player experience is a hypothetical compilation of these experiences of attention, edited by memory. Memory provides a tolerance effect because people tend to remember what engaged them and forget what bored them. So it's never necessary to completely eliminate boring or distracting elemtents of a game.
Rather than "immersive", perhaps I should use the word "focus".
I envision a game system where the players generate most of the content, and GM's role is managing the dramatic tension, complication, and resolution. This would be supported by some game mechanics (like InSpectres' stages of play and Job Dice or Space Odysses' plot tokens) and the GM ability to introduce driving content (Bangs), and to up the stakes in a particular conflict.
I'd like to balance game mechanics so that players focus, say, more than half the time on the decisions of their PC, and the rest on directorial and authorial concerns. Is that possible?
I'm already seeing lots of good suggestions in this thread. Keep coming with the ideas!
- Alan
On 9/25/2002 at 5:43pm, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: immersive authorship (split)
Hi Alan,
Well, I think that you are describing two very different things.
1) Attention to in-game imaginary elements as opposed to people-doing-things like "rolling dice." With the emphasis on the imaginative part, then you're describing Exploration.
2) The permission and activity of players to contribute those imaginary elements, up to and including setting and situation to some extent (if I'm reading you right). This is pretty much Director Stance.
So my first point is that the vocabulary for what you're talking about exists. By the way, "focus" has been kicked around already without really finding a home, but let's leave that out - as I say, we already have the terms for what you're looking for.
Trouble is, many people find that #1 and #2 are incompatible. Not everyone - I like both, for instance. But tons of folks will find the idea of contributing content to detract from the intensity-imagination angle of play.
All right, put those folks aside - not the audience, right? So let's focus on people who do like #1 and #2 at the same time. My call is that Universalis comes closest. Especially if you were to perhaps Gimmick it to a more traditional GM/player setup, or to have a few more traditional rules embedded in there, it seems like it would fit your bill just right.
Best,
Ron