Hello all,

A conversation with friends prompted me to look back at recent threads about the sticky topic of immersion in role-playing. There is an excellent and constructive discussion of it from not so long ago in this thread: Feeble attempt at defining immersion. Ron, your list sounded like a good project. I look forward to seeing it and wonder if it is something you'd like to open up to more discussion.

My comment here is more about why immersion is so hard to define.

Immersion is subjective state of mind which each individual has unique requirements in order to enter. What helps me do what I call immersing might absolutely block you from being able to attain what you call immersing. Our experiences of it might also be mutually exclusive. If I could put it into words, what I describe as immersion (in character, game, world or other) might not accurately communicate what my experience is to you, or if it did what I described could be sufficiently different from your experience that you would not acknowledge my experience as immersion.

So, the reason why people argue about it is because, essentially, everyone else is wrong about what immersion is. The mistake is assuming that there is one definition of immersion that will describe all of the breadth of the different ways it is experienced.

So, a list like the one Ron proposed would be meaningful in as much as it gave people shared terminology to describe their own unique experience. Reminds me of the whole reason GNS arose. :)

Having said that, my personal suspicion is that there is a shared experience among everyone who speaks about immersion, and the real differences are in what one requires in order to experience that. The differences include system, metagame and social concerns, description of setting, pacing, the whole gamut of what goes into role-playing. And for me, that basic part is feeling like the actions of character or world that I narrate are originating in a source outside of my conscious mind--most likely my unconscious mind. A friend quoted or paraphrased Samuel Delaney about one of two different approaches that one can have to art:"art is dictated from some unknown Other". In role-playing, character immersion allows one to feel that the unknown Other in question is the character.

--Emily Care

An empowering way we could talk about immersion here on the Forge is that everyone is a unique authority on what constitutes their immersive experiences. Heterodoxy.

I think you may have something--a tip of it, I'm not sure what, but let me digress for a moment.


What I expect from "immersion" is being the character--feeling as the character, and thinking as the character (when I'm a player at least) my goal is to enjoy the being I've created to in part think as much like them as possible and play upon that as the game progresses. Its why I dislike games which brake the tension, the "scene" the "feel" of the moment with mechanics that require work and effort to make use of if they pull me out of the characters head to mess with some fiddly bit (whether rule, or physical object) then the game is as fault for hurting my experience--some games work fine by making these bits as unobtrusive as possible but some also try and make them a /focus/ of the game--hence why Deadlands doesn't work for me--it made the fiddly bit the focus, on the other hand Saga which also used cards worked for me because its fiddly bit was not the focus--it was just a resolution mechanic.


Now--that is what immersion is to me --feeling-- and --being---
Anything else outside of that is game concerns.

I recently played LOTR, and a friend whose not normally a GM ran it--but he is familiar with the world. His descriptions, pacing, everything brought Middle Earth to life--it only failed when he tried combat, because the mechanics unfamiliarity, and the combat descriptions were more -gamer- concerns and not Middle Earth citizen concerns. It was a good game all told for the experience--with a few fixable flaws to the immersion.


How to make the game immersive? Is a question games should approach, but the final impetus will always be /who/ is playing.

No matter the game if two players are talking about a TV show they saw last night--immersion is damaged. If on the other hand they are chattering about things their characters concerns immersion is supported, and while you can encourage this you cannot create rules to enforce it---forced behaviours create a strain, and tension and can be just as damaging to the immersion as out of character conversations.

Hello,

I'm very dubious about a thread which simply opens up "What immersion means to me."

It doesn't matter what any one person thinks "immersion" is. Immersion has shown itself, over and over, to be a synonym for whatever the speaker values during role-playing. It is, at most, being "into it." And what constitutes "into it" differs very, very widely.

Using the term permits people to agree without substance. "I'm all about immersion!" "Cool, so am I!" and then they play, and it's a big fight and a big stink. It also permits game texts to appeal, on the surface level, to a variety of people - again, this is an illusion of unity and shared goals, not a true agreement or a true widespread appeal.

Now, the trouble with making this point is that people universally read it to mean, "Hey! You're saying that what I care about most doesn't matter!" and dig in their heels with every fiber of their beings. They cry out in defensive fear and start attacking one another. And then I close the thread, and everyone feels marginalized, and grumbles start appearing that Ron is shutting down people who disagree with him.

Let's not do that again. Please, everyone, read Emily's post and realize that it is not a call for "What immersion means to me." Or rather, if it is, in order to derive some heterodoxy from rabid chaos, I call for no disputes whatsoever on this thread. None. Vive la difference, is what this one is all about.

Best,
Ron

I am having trouble understanding the question. What is immersion? Is it getting completely "lost" in the character the world or what? Do we really need to define the "what?" Or can we get away with simply agree that there is a state we can call "immersion" were the participants lose themselves completely in the activity they are partaking in? Or is engrossed a better term for what I'm saying. I get engrossed in, say, television when I watch it. (Probably why the wife tries to talk to me during shows about important shit. And waiting for commercials is no good. I am mesmerized by them, too) It works the same in games.

But what is this shared experience of which you speak? Looking at engrossment, again, you could have group of people over for movie night and you all sit and watch the smae movies, and thus have the same experience although each individual may have enjoyed different things, yaddah yaddah. Or, you could have Bad Movie Night where you rent movies that should be on MST3K and the group MST3K's it and has a ball doing that.Now say you have movie night and one person thinks the movie is cheesy and makes lame jokes all the way through. The rest don't mind and may chortle if he hits on something really funny but otherwise ignore him. But one guy is enjoy the movie and keeps saying "Shut up, Jack" with growing annoyance.

I am saying this to look at how a group can be engrossed or immersed in an activity, regardless of the activity, and how that engrossment can be disturbed. I hestitate to say broken. Disturbed seems like a better choice of words.

Is this too far off base?

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,
It doesn't matter what any one person thinks "immersion" is. Immersion has shown itself, over and over, to be a synonym for whatever the speaker values during role-playing. It is, at most, being "into it." And what constitutes "into it" differs very, very widely.

Alan wrote: Most of us can agree we like sugar, but to argue that only one kind of donut delivers the experience is to confuse the agent with the sensation.

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Or can we get away with simply agree that there is a state we can call "immersion" were the participants lose themselves completely in the activity they are partaking in? (snipped)

...I am saying this to look at how a group can be engrossed or immersed in an activity, regardless of the activity, and how that engrossment can be disturbed. I hestitate to say broken. Disturbed seems like a better choice of words.

Is this too far off base?

Generally I just immerse in a character because I choose to do so. I have created a person in whom I am intensely interested, and I want to understand who they are and how they interact with others and with the imagined world around them. Maybe it's because I'm rather introverted--I can completely fascinate myself with no outside help. It's a bit like interactive daydreaming, really--and I was always able to become immersed in my daydreams; just ask my elementary school teachers.

Unlike Sidhain, I find that game mechanics interruptions do not throw me. I theorize: I am a deep and detailed thinker, and that means I'm not usually quick. I don't like fast-paced games. I referee who demands a quick answer or action or I lose my opportunity loses me as a player. If he goes into the book and withdraws from play* it gives me the opportunity I so greatly desire to think several steps ahead, to visualize the full layout of the situation and determine as many of the options as I can, and possibly to formulate a plan that's going to turn the odds in my favor.

*It is quite possible for a capable referee to go to the books and hunt down a rule without disrupting the flow of play; I've done it for years. If you've got five players, and one of them wants to do something for which you have to check the rules, it's not generally too difficult to find out what the other four want to do and to adjudicate the results while you're flipping pages in search of the section you need. But it's one of those little things you just don't realize you can do until someone suggests it and you try it, and then, duh, why didn't I do this before?

--M. J. Young

I'm going to look at Sidhain's and M. J. Young's posts as examples of how we may analyse the parts of the general process of immersion. I am in no way trying to define Immersion, just learning to break down how we talk about it.

Hope that's okay, you two! Please correct any mis-characterizations I may make your of experience.

Part 1: Sensation
(Descriptions of Sensations Involved in What One Person Experiences) as "Immersion":

Sidhain's experience:

Sidhain wrote: What I expect from "immersion" is being the character--feeling as the character, and thinking as the character (when I'm a player at least) my goal is to enjoy the being I've created to in part think as much like them as possible and play upon that as the game progresses.

Sidhain wrote: Now--that is what immersion is to me --feeling-- and --being---
Anything else outside of that is game concerns.

M. J. Young wrote: Generally I just immerse in a character because choose to do so. I have created a person in whom I am intensely interested, and I want to understand who they are and how they interact with others and with the imagined world around them. Maybe it's because I'm rather introverted--I can completely fascinate myself with no outside help. It's a bit like interactive daydreaming, really--and I was always able to become immersed in my daydreams; just ask my elementary school teachers.

Sidhain wrote: I recently played LOTR, and a friend whose not normally a GM ran it--but he is familiar with the world. His descriptions, pacing, everything brought Middle Earth to life--it only failed when he tried combat, because the mechanics unfamiliarity, and the combat descriptions were more -gamer- concerns and not Middle Earth citizen concerns. It was a good game all told for the experience--with a few fixable flaws to the immersion.

Sidhain wrote: Its why I dislike games which brake the tension, the "scene" the "feel" of the moment with mechanics that require work and effort to make use of if they pull me out of the characters head to mess with some fiddly bit (whether rule, or physical object) then the game is as fault for hurting my experience--some games work fine by making these bits as unobtrusive as possible but some also try and make them a /focus/ of the game--hence why Deadlands doesn't work for me--it made the fiddly bit the focus, on the other hand Saga which also used cards worked for me because its fiddly bit was not the focus--it was just a resolution mechanic.

Sidhain wrote: No matter the game if two players are talking about a TV show they saw last night--immersion is damaged. If on the other hand they are chattering about things their characters concerns immersion is supported, and while you can encourage this you cannot create rules to enforce it---forced behaviours create a strain, and tension and can be just as damaging to the immersion as out of character conversations.

M.J. Young wrote: Unlike Sidhain, I find that game mechanics interruptions do not throw me. I theorize: I am a deep and detailed thinker, and that means I'm not usually quick. I don't like fast-paced games. [A] referee who demands a quick answer or action or I lose my opportunity loses me as a player. If he goes into the book and withdraws from play* it gives me the opportunity I so greatly desire to think several steps ahead, to visualize the full layout of the situation and determine as many of the options as I can, and possibly to formulate a plan that's going to turn the odds in my favor.

*It is quite possible for a capable referee to go to the books and hunt down a rule without disrupting the flow of play; I've done it for years. If you've got five players, and one of them wants to do something for which you have to check the rules, it's not generally too difficult to find out what the other four want to do and to adjudicate the results while you're flipping pages in search of the section you need. But it's one of those little things you just don't realize you can do until someone suggests it and you try it, and then, duh, why didn't I do this before?

Emily Care wrote: Elements that Detract from M.J.'s Experience of Immersion

• Fast paced games.
• Short time period for deciding on in-character actions.

When I first saw this topic, I thought "oh, damn, here comes another senseless waste of electrons," but it's actually become quite interesting. Good job, Emily.

My experience of "immersion" is not much like Sidhain's. I don't think I've ever achieved a sense of "thinking like the character" in the same way that he describes. If I did, I obviously didn't enjoy it, because it's not even something I try to do.

Instead, when I'm playing a game (using "playing" in opposition to "GMing" for the moment), I look for some of the same qualities that I enjoy in genre fantasy, namely, detailed world-building and well-realized characters. I want to get a sense that the setting and situation, and the other players' characters, have some sort of Platonic existence unconfined to material reality. I want these things to engage my imagination fully. When that is happening, I am much more effective as as actor portraying my character; but that is not my goal.

One of the things that greatly improves the quality of my immersive experience is the appropriate use of language by other players. I try to make the speech patterns of my characters distinct from my own, and I really wish that other players did the same thing. It ruins the moment for me when characters use anachronistic language (or, rather, when players fail to use anachronistic language).

Players who are not paying attention to the game break my immersion. If you nod off or start reading a book while your character is off-stage, even if you do it quietly and without the intention of interfering with my play, I find it intensely distracting. The game should be the focus of everyone's attention.

Long periods during which my character is off-stage are another problem. So are scenes in which game time is moving slower than real time--complex combat mechanics are a problem because they cause game time to drag, not because interacting with the system is a problem in itself.

Apologies for a rambling and unfocused post. I hope it illuminates something for someone.

Thank you, Seth. I hope people find this thread useful. I think part of what I'm after is being able to better work with myself when my immersion breaks down. Any thoughts from others as to whether looking at your immersion this way might help you do that?

M.J. Young wrote: I'm actually pretty good at compiling vast lists of possible solutions, and then paring them down by filters....
If you start rushing me to make decisions, I have to take out that intermediate step; I don't have time to compile the options, pass them through the character filter, and determine what he would do. I'm now working far more on the basis of what I would do. I've been forced out of character, the game has been reduced to Risk, and I am no longer immersed.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: When that is happening, I am much more effective as as actor portraying my character; but that is not my goal

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: My experience of "immersion" is not much like Sidhain's. I don't think I've ever achieved a sense of "thinking like the character" in the same way that he describes. If I did, I obviously didn't enjoy it, because it's not even something I try to do.

Instead, when I'm playing a game (using "playing" in opposition to "GMing" for the moment), I look for some of the same qualities that I enjoy in genre fantasy, namely, detailed world-building and well-realized characters. I want to get a sense that the setting and situation, and the other players' characters, have some sort of Platonic existence unconfined to material reality.

Terminological quibble: I think using "Exploration" there is a mistake, unless you are proposing to amend Ron's SSSCC taxonomy.

Other than that, I think you have a good framework for discussing the various kinds of imaginative engagement. (The breadth of the subject goes well beyond anything I've ever labeled as "immersion," so I feel compelled to refer to it by a different name.)

Let me see whether I understand correctly. You are saying, based on my description, that I experience engagement mostly through Sensations and Performance, that (again, for me) it is contingent on World and Metagame issues, and that I am mostly engaged with the World?

In response to my comments, Emily Care wrote: Internal
Processes-- thoughts and decisions made in the mind, or ways these come about, that allow one to immerse, ie M.J.'s "filters"

Points well taken, Seth.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Terminological quibble: I think using "Exploration" there is a mistake, unless you are proposing to amend Ron's SSSCC taxonomy.

Locus
Pronunciation Key (lks)
n. pl. lo·ci (-s, -k, -k)

1.A locality; a place.
2.A center or focus of great activity or intense concentration: “the cunning exploitation of loci of power; the insulation from normal American society” (Clifton Fadiman).
3.Mathematics. The set or configuration of all points whose coordinates satisfy a single equation or one or more algebraic conditions.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Other than that, I think you have a good framework for discussing the various kinds of imaginative engagement. (The breadth of the subject goes well beyond anything I've ever labeled as "immersion," so I feel compelled to refer to it by a different name.)

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Let me see whether I understand correctly. You are saying, based on my description, that I experience engagement mostly through Sensations and Performance, that (again, for me) it is contingent on World and Metagame issues, and that I am mostly engaged with the World?

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: My experience of "immersion" is not much like Sidhain's. I don't think I've ever achieved a sense of "thinking like the character" in the same way that he describes. If I did, I obviously didn't enjoy it, because it's not even something I try to do.

M.J.: I can take personality tests "in-character" too. I just don't think of it as immersion, because for each question, I have to say to myself, "Now what would [character name] say?" I've always thought that, were I really immersed in the character, the answer would come automatically.

Emily: I like "Locus of Engagement," but then, I've always liked the word "locus" and tend to use it as often as possible. As for your curiosity about my experience of Sensations of Engagement, you had previously explicitly included feelings in response to the experience of engagement under that heading, and that's what I was referring to. Full Engagement is a very emotional experience for me, despite not usually involving Proxy Sensation.

Emily Care wrote: M.J.: Do you use the same Processes to do it as you use when playing in character? This might be a good topic for a thread of it's own.

Seth:

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Emily: I like "Locus of Engagement," but then, I've always liked the word "locus" and tend to use it as often as possible.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: As for your curiosity about my experience of Sensations of Engagement, you had previously explicitly included feelings in response to the experience of engagement under that heading, and that's what I was referring to. Full Engagement is a very emotional experience for me, despite not usually involving Proxy Sensation.

Now how does this Locus of engagement work? Do particular individuals focus on a single locus or are they all important to all player by varying degress and for a particylar individual does it become a loci juggling act to focus on the various loci at crucial points in certain circumstances?

Attempting to answer both Emily and Jack here, let me start with Jack,

who wrote: Do particular individuals focus on a single locus or are they all important to all player by varying degress and for a particylar individual does it become a loci juggling act to focus on the various loci at crucial points in certain circumstances?

That is, as Emily wrote: M.J.: What is your locus of engagement? Is character where you get the most focused enjoyment out of playing, and "lose" yourself? Or are there other aspects of playing (competition, drama, narrative, etc.) that allow you to feel you are immersed?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: Do particular individuals focus on a single locus or are they all important to all player by varying degress and for a particular individual does it become a loci juggling act to focus on the various loci at crucial points in certain circumstances?

M.J. Young wrote: I think that for me, what happens is I am identifying with my character, and all of the rest enhances my ability to do so, even as the identification with my character enables me to experience the rest in an "immersive" way.

M.J. Young wrote: So I would say that a single locus seems to be the point from which the rest of the game is experienced.

Of course, this is all very subjective; I'd be interested in whether Sidhain, for example, sees it differently.