Topic: Immersion and Story
Started by: John Kim
Started on: 9/17/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 9/17/2003 at 8:13pm, John Kim wrote:
Immersion and Story
This is a reply to Mike Holmes, split from another take on "the character doesn't exist". Since this isn't talking about whether characters exist (an argument which has long since bogged down), I think the issues he brings up should be a separate topic.
The issue is what the position of an "immersionist" is, and how it relates to narrative and storytelling.
Mike Holmes wrote: What bugs the "immersionist" is that he can see the player's decisions behind the character's. Yes, this would occur if the player made the character do something in an implausible or inconsistent way in order to make the plot go a particular way. But it can also happen when a player makes a completely plausible decision to, for example, drive the plot in a particular direction. Sometimes it's just obvious, despite the actual decision that the player is selecting being the same.
This tallies exactly with how I think of immersion, and it was defined as the distinguishing characteristic during discussion among many people on rec.games.frp.advocacy. Immersion is aided by making artifice less visible. For example, as I watch a film, it could be that there are frequent mistakes like the boom mike dropping into the shot or seeing the reflection of the cameraman. Even though the story told is the same (i.e. the boom mike doesn't change how I understand the characters), the experience is changed.
In terms of role-playing, the equivalent to seeing the boom mike is seeing actions taken with obvious intent outside of the in-game conception. For example, the players might say that they are going overland instead of taking the main road. They then see the GM erasing and writing furiously for a minute, then shows them a map and notes that they see a dark castle nearby. Like with the boom mike, the artifice of the creation sticks out.
This brings up that "plausibility" and "consistency" are complex issues. For example, the GM may be able to later come up with a explanation for that castle being there which is consistent with other in-sessions events. However, it was also obvious to the players and to the GM himself that it was not consistent with his original vision, as reflected in the old map before the erasing. The same applies to character action. For example, say I come up with a rationalization to get my PC to act in a particular way for story reasons. I may be able to make this consistent externally, but it may well conflict with my internal picture of what the PC is feeling. Like with the GM's map, other players may be able to notice this as well.
Mike Holmes wrote: This gives an idea of the spectrum of what I'll call the Authorial Appearance. It's precisely this Authorial Appearance that the "Immersionist" doesn't want. Because at that point, the game ceases being a Simulation (hence Simulationism) in which the player is participating, and becomes a collaborative storytelling act at some level. Which has an entirely different feel to some. So if you want the Simulation feel, you avoid Authorial Appearance.
This makes some sense, but I think it clashes with the GNS usage of the word "simulationism". As I understand it, GNS Narrativism doesn't require Author stance play, or Authorial Appearance as you put it. So it is possible for something to have the "simulation feel" as you put it, but still be Narrativist in GNS terms. For example, my Water-Uphill campaign had no Authorial Appearance. It was about four children from the modern world who find themselves in a bizarre fantasy world. As you put it in another article, this is all about Situation. There was no undramatic choice for them to do.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 7968
On 9/17/2003 at 9:24pm, David Chunn wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
(Arrgh! I'm having to write this a second time. Hope I can remember everything I said before . . . No, I can't. I did my best, though.)
I have a problem with the term immersionist, and I think discussion of it is exceedingly complex and tricky.
First, it can appear in any GNS mode, though the definitions and uses I see often sound like some sort of desired organic simulationism. I don't see why I cannot be immersed within a narrative itself. Or within the competition itself. My players tend to get immersed in whatever style we're playing.
Second, it is related to stance but not dependent on it. Again, I think immersion is possible in any stance just like in any GNS mode. Though sometimes immersionism sounds like author stance within simulationism.
The way it is commonly used, sounds to me like "in-character out of the rules" or "locked within the imagined reality".
Third, I think immersion is entirely dependent on a player's imaginative processes. I find it easy to be completely immersed within character only to pop out and metagame for a moment before dipping back in. In fact, to enjoy a game I must have immersion within the imagined reality, even when I'm controlling it through metagame. Of course, I read, write, and analyze novels everyday, so that may just be me.
Is an immersionist supposed to be someone who sits back and lets the story unfold upon them? Is an immersionist really just an explorer lost among the elements of play? Would "hard-core actor" be a better term for what some people mean by this style of player?
On 9/18/2003 at 2:44am, gentrification wrote:
Re: Immersion and Story
John Kim wrote: Immersion is aided by making artifice less visible. For example, as I watch a film, it could be that there are frequent mistakes like the boom mike dropping into the shot or seeing the reflection of the cameraman. Even though the story told is the same (i.e. the boom mike doesn't change how I understand the characters), the experience is changed.
In terms of role-playing, the equivalent to seeing the boom mike is seeing actions taken with obvious intent outside of the in-game conception.
Hmm. Another way to look at that analogy: in a film, the artifice becomes visible when the director uses a stylistic technique that deliberately and blatantly reminds the audience that they are watching a film -- such as blood splattering on the camera lens during a fight scene, or using split-screen techniques, or freezing the action during a voiceover.
On 9/18/2003 at 3:24am, RaconteurX wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
I am in the same camp as David, in that I can transition in and out of character without losing my sense of immersion in the setting. As I am always in the character's head (he, she or it being a product of my own, after all), it is never jarring; I just pick up where I left off. I never lose track of a character's internal consistency just because someone asks me to make a die roll or what I want on my pizza, and most people would consider me a Method Actor foremost (to use terminology from Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering).
On 9/18/2003 at 4:26am, Ron Edwards wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
Hello,
Quick reference: thoughts on why immersion is a tar baby.
Best,
Ron
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4640
On 9/18/2003 at 4:27am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
David Chunn wrote: First, it can appear in any GNS mode, though the definitions and uses I see often sound like some sort of desired organic simulationism. I don't see why I cannot be immersed within a narrative itself. Or within the competition itself. My players tend to get immersed in whatever style we're playing.
As you say, it is a tricky term -- but that's exactly why I want to discuss it. It was brought up by several different people in recent threads.
I would agree that immersion certainly doesn't seem exclusive to, say, Simulationism. However, I would caution against treating "immersed" as meaning nothing more than "interested" or "engaged". I would say there is plenty of interesting entertainment that isn't immersive.
David Chunn wrote: Third, I think immersion is entirely dependent on a player's imaginative processes. I find it easy to be completely immersed within character only to pop out and metagame for a moment before dipping back in. In fact, to enjoy a game I must have immersion within the imagined reality, even when I'm controlling it through metagame. Of course, I read, write, and analyze novels everyday, so that may just be me.
I'd agree that it's personal, but I would think that there are similarities and patterns. Personally, I find that there are some things which definitely jar with my immersion -- though not all mechanics or even metagame action do so. For example, I find statements like "Your character feels X" to be pretty impossible to internalize. I also find that Whimsy Cards do this for me. I use them in the campaign I'm currently playing, but as a player I find I tend to forget them when I get into character. It works better if the metagame mechanic maps to something in the PC -- i.e. spending drama points for things which my character really wants is easier.
David Chunn wrote: Is an immersionist supposed to be someone who sits back and lets the story unfold upon them? Is an immersionist really just an explorer lost among the elements of play? Would "hard-core actor" be a better term for what some people mean by this style of player?
I don't think that immersionist implies a passive role -- it just implies action through character, as opposed to action by defining background or external events.
On 9/18/2003 at 7:41am, contracycle wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
RaconteurX wrote: I am in the same camp as David, in that I can transition in and out of character without losing my sense of immersion in the setting. As I am always in the character's head (he, she or it being a product of my own, after all), it is never jarring; I just pick up where I left off.
The ease of this transition indicates to me that this is not what I would use the term Immersion to describe at all.
But, this term now has positive connotations, negative connotations, and substantial, vague, spread to other related things. It should be stricken and more precise terminology employed.
On 9/18/2003 at 7:50am, Jack Spencer Jr wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
My thoughts on immersion were posted here in July 2001
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 315
On 9/18/2003 at 3:56pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
contracycle wrote: But, this term now has positive connotations, negative connotations, and substantial, vague, spread to other related things. It should be stricken and more precise terminology employed.
This has been said before, but you need terminology which actually speaks to the distinction. Just saying to avoid the word doesn't help if it leaves people flailing to express the same idea. Despite this having been said before, several veteran posters brought it up on the "do characters exist" threads, including Valamir (who suggested a definition of "deep immersion") and Mike Holmes (who suggested a definition of "immersionist").
So any suggestions on the more precise terminology?
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 82341
Topic 83421
On 9/18/2003 at 4:00pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
The more precise phrase would be something like "lack of the appearance of authorial control in a way that's problematic for an individual's personal feeling of immersion." Anyone want to pose a single term for which that's the definition?
BTW, John, I think it is Simulationism to an extent. That they are on some level equivalent. I've worked with this for a long time, and I can't come up with anything else to which Simulationism refers. Note, that Sim and Nar can be hybridized. So it's not surprising that one can have both simultaneosly. This doesn't say anything about the definition of Narrativism. It's a "that without which it is not" sort of a definition. That is, Simulationism is making decisions in such a way as to attempt to mimimize Authorial Appearance so as to ensure that the decision is not problematic to anyone's personal feeling of immersion (most notably the decision maker's).
Note that to be precise that Authorial Appearance isn't quite right, either. There are other things that can disrupt immersion in a way similar to the appearance of Author stance, so in a way it's just indicative of the sort of thing that's problematic. I'd venture Metagame Appearance, but that's not quite right either. Non in-world? I dunno.
This is why I had that whole thread before about how this is a different axis. Whether that's true or not, it seems to be a very specific sort of requirement to me. That is, it's very much a non-appearance of something that we're looking for. Whereas Gamism and Narrativism are looking for some particular quality in the decision to appear. So when looking at conguence, we're looking at maintaining some minimum level of in-game plausibility while also looking for the positive qualities on that "other axis".
Mike
On 9/18/2003 at 5:30pm, contracycle wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
John Kim wrote:
So any suggestions on the more precise terminology?
Well, if it were up to me, I would distinguish between In Character, Method Actor, and Trance State play modes.
But these of course arise from my own particular view; what I mean more clearly is that a discussion of the phenomenon should proceed without the term immersion, and after the discussion we can approach terminology. I'm not sure everyone would agree there are three 'degrees', for example.
On 9/18/2003 at 9:42pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
Mike Holmes wrote: The more precise phrase would be something like "lack of the appearance of authorial control in a way that's problematic for an individual's personal feeling of immersion." Anyone want to pose a single term for which that's the definition?
BTW, John, I think it is Simulationism to an extent. That they are on some level equivalent. I've worked with this for a long time, and I can't come up with anything else to which Simulationism refers.
...
I'd venture Metagame Appearance, but that's not quite right either. Non in-world? I dunno.
...
That is, it's very much a non-appearance of something that we're looking for.
Wow. Well, I'd avoided talking about this before, but the above is exactly how we defined and talked about "Simulationism" as part of the Threefold Model on rec.games.frp.advocacy (circa 1997-1998). There, simulationism was defined negatively as valuing the resolving in-game events based solely on game-world considerations, without allowing any meta-game issues to affect the decision. Within this forum, though, I've felt that it was confusing to say this since Ron's GNS model has defined the term differently.
On 9/18/2003 at 9:54pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
I don't think GNS does define it differently, really. In fact, it's the creation of Narrativism and the discarding of Dramatism which overlapped that makes GNS what it is, IMO. The specific terms of GNS are different, especially the idea that it's decisions that we're talking about, but you can take that definition and talk it all around, and what it comes to is what I'm describing above. No surprise that it's the same definition as what you had. And why the GNS definition has people saying occasionally that Simulationism doesn't exist.
In-game or In-world can also be problematic. Because you can also throw in in-theme, or in-genere or other things. It seems that these are contradictory, but nobody objects in Feng Shui when a character does something suicidal. It's not that the action is actually suicidal, the rules make it not so. But the character doesn't know that. It's just that it's in-genre to do outrageous things. So it all depends on what you're simulating as to what the parameters are. Even themes are OK as long as you're playing to the established themes, and not making new ones.
Mike
On 9/18/2003 at 10:48pm, David Chunn wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
What confuses me about the term immersion as it pops up on the Forge occasionally is this: what/who is being immersed and into what? Can I be immersed within the game's creative agenda?
By a strict conventional definition of the word, it is certainly possible to be profoundly involved within Story Now, Step On Up, and assorted metagame. Truth be told, the most "immersed" players I've ever seen were a group of guys conducting the specifics of their very gamist D&D combats. The only time I see metagame as a problem for immersion is within the realm of simulationism, which is to be expected.
If we are considering immersion to be entirely through the medium of character inserted into an imaginary world, then I think a better term to use would be character immersion. That is still a problematic term, but an improvement IMO.
A narrativist immersionist doesn't want to be hampered by Simulationism. A sim immersionist doesn't want to be hampered by competition and metagame. Etc.
Finally, I'm in a poetic mood today, so I suggest the preference of immersionists in terms of simulationist play be called puppets, no strings.
On 9/18/2003 at 11:05pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
Mike Holmes wrote: I don't think GNS does define it differently, really.
...
In-game or In-world can also be problematic. Because you can also throw in in-theme, or in-genere or other things. It seems that these are contradictory, but nobody objects in Feng Shui when a character does something suicidal. It's not that the action is actually suicidal, the rules make it not so. But the character doesn't know that. It's just that it's in-genre to do outrageous things. So it all depends on what you're simulating as to what the parameters are. Even themes are OK as long as you're playing to the established themes, and not making new ones.
I don't follow your second paragraph. Sure, you can change the definition of rgfa Simulationism to throw in in-genre and in-theme -- but that changes what it means (obviously). This exact change was suggested by David Berkman during rgfa debates, but it was soundly rejected by those on rgfa who identified with simulationism. (I discuss this in my essay on The Origin of the Threefold Model, by the way.)
In rgfa's way of speaking, Feng Shui is absolutely not Simulationist. In fact, discussion of FS was a point of contention between more simulation-oriented posters (like Mary Kuhner and myself) and other posters like Jose Garcia and Bruce Baugh. cf Bruce's Genre and Believability thread from 1996, for example. There we discussed problems with the immersive point-of-view of a Feng Shui PC with Lightning Reload (who has an infinite supply of bullets).
I don't think either definition is right or wrong -- but GNS Simulationism is very different from rgfa Simulationism.
On 9/19/2003 at 7:20pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
Ok, there you have the difference.
I'd agree with the definition here as I think what breaks SOD is a matter of taste. And it doesn't matter, really. It's only that the player has some criteria, whatever that may be that makes for Simulationism. Something which, stepping outside of it, makes the player less able to "immerse". Doesn't really matter what it is. Just that it's there.
So for some brands of Sim, playing to themes will be seen as problematic, while in others it won't.
What confuses me about the term immersion as it pops up on the Forge occasionally is this: what/who is being immersed and into what?
I'm so glad you asked. I've been waiting to talk about the feeling. :-)
Have you ever been playing in a first-person shooter computer game, and you forgot who you were? I mean, at some point you "wake up" and think, "gee, I wasn't myself for a while"? Has that ever happened to you?
Have you ever been watching a movie, and at some point your stomach growled, and you suddenly realize that you're not in the movie? That it's not real? And you look around to reassure yourself that the "real world" still exists, and that the movie isn't reality? And then felt pangs at the fact that the movie world wasn't real? Not that RL is bad, but that it'd be nice to have two lives?
Happens to me all the time. I can even get there in my head sitting here typing at work (hope my boss doesn't come around, takes a second to snap out of it).
The point is that there's a level beyond just "interest" or even "fascination", where your brainwave state changes so radically that you actually temporarily drop out of normal reality for all cognitive purposes. Without sensory deprivation, this can't be maintained for long, but even in a crowded room and carrying on a conversation I can do it for thirty seconds or so at a time (hard to know really because you usually lose all track of time).
I've said it's like Mysticism (RL), and I mean that. I've had existential episodes that had similar effects on me, for example.
That's "immersion" in it's most extreme form, temporarily delusional (I suppose you could become permenantly delusional, but I don't think that's a level we're ready for yet). And you don't need to get all the way there in order to enjoy the feeling. In fact, that level of immersion is pretty rare. Partial immersion is often just fine, however. Where you're sorta hovering on the edge of it.
I'd like to add that, in addition to the novelty of this sort of immersion, there's a very drug-like feeling that I, at least, get. I'm sure it's chemical. I actually get high on it. It bears some similarities to the feeling I sometimes get when I spend too much time in water (almost groggy). So don't be surprised if some players are really attached to it, like any altered state.
I wanted to talk about it because it's not easy to describe. I've probably done a poor job here, but I had to try. I think that it may not be a phenomenon that everyone experiences (depsite claims from a lot of people that they do "immerse"). Anyhow, if they do, then I admire those who can do it without the "sensory deprivation" of inputs that take me, and others out of it. If that's the case, then I do believe that we're talking about personal biology and other inalterable things as part of the criteria.
Answer this last one carefully. When you picture what's happening in a scene in a RPG, do you see your character, and what he's doing?
When I'm immersing, I don't see my character; I see what he sees, through his eyes.
Mike
On 9/19/2003 at 9:38pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
Mike Holmes wrote: (Re: Simulationism) Ok, there you have the difference.
I'd agree with the definition here as I think what breaks SOD is a matter of taste. And it doesn't matter, really. It's only that the player has some criteria, whatever that may be that makes for Simulationism. Something which, stepping outside of it, makes the player less able to "immerse". Doesn't really matter what it is. Just that it's there.
Let me try to follow this. What you're saying is that the "real" meaning of Simulationism to you is that the player is trying for immersion -- and you think that the GNS definition (i.e. prioritizing Exploration) is closer to this than the rgfa definition (i.e. disliking metagame issues impacting in-game resolution).
Personally, I think all three of these definitions are different. I agree with all three -- that is, they all seem like valid distinctions.
However, your position seems bothersome to me. By equating immersionist (more specifically, character immersion) with Simulationism, you seem to be implying that character-immersive play isn't compatible with Narrativism.
In my experience, character-immersive play is often packed full of meaningful moral choice. For example, my Water-Uphill campaign was an experiment on my part to promote immersion and to stick to strict simulation. But the focus and the highlights were all about moral choice. Character-immersion won't produce self-conscious thinking about what will address the Premise, but it can easily be filled with meaningful moral choice and thus dynamic theme.
On 9/19/2003 at 9:51pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
By equating immersionist (more specifically, character immersion) with Simulationism, you seem to be implying that character-immersive play isn't compatible with Narrativism.No, I am not. Sim and Nar are compatible. It's called Hybrid play. They are two different priorities happening simultaneously. There will be occasions where they are mutually exclusive, but in those cases, you just do one or the other for a moment.
Mike
On 9/20/2003 at 5:59pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
Mike Holmes wrote:By equating immersionist (more specifically, character immersion) with Simulationism, you seem to be implying that character-immersive play isn't compatible with Narrativism.
No, I am not. Sim and Nar are compatible. It's called Hybrid play. They are two different priorities happening simultaneously. There will be occasions where they are mutually exclusive, but in those cases, you just do one or the other for a moment.
I've spent a while pondering what you say, and it seems like a reasonable position, but one I disagree with.
There are many people who would say that immersive entertainment is inherently cathartic and escapist. Respected theorists like Berthold Brecht and Roland Barthes hold positions which sound much like yours, applied to theater and novels. They tend to advocate fiction which challenges the audience rather than carrying the audience in a false reality. In this view, there is a split between two goals: (1) getting the audience to believe that this is real, and (2) conveying moral meaning. You can have a hybrid which combines both, but there are trade-offs.
However, I think that immersion can be a positive part of theme. Seeing through the character's eyes enables the communication of meaning in ways which cannot be conveyed otherwise. I'm working on a structuralist sort of approach to describe what I mean, but it's still being worked on.
On 9/21/2003 at 10:29pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Immersion and Story
They tend to advocate fiction which challenges the audience rather than carrying the audience in a false reality. In this view, there is a split between two goals: (1) getting the audience to believe that this is real, and (2) conveying moral meaning. You can have a hybrid which combines both, but there are trade-offs.
Compatible is the wrong term. Sim and Nar are not always mutually exclusive. They aren't the same thing. And yes, they can, at times conflict (hence the potential for incoherence). But they don't always.
As I've said, when conflict does occur, when there are two decisions and one is Sim and the other is Nar, then you have to choose one that isn't in line with the other priority.
From Ron's POV with groups of decisions being aggregated into instances of play, this instance will still be hybrid overall. As a defining part of the Creative Agenda, it's a coherent style of play.
The problem of incoherence comes along when, allowed to do either at any point, a player is informed that either Sim or Nar alone is alright. In which case, if they play soley that way you have incoherence again.
Or, rather, the player doesn't get that the other requirement exists. That is, if some players are playing Sim/Nar hybrid, for example, and another is playing Nar, because he sees that the Nar part is OK, but doesn't understand that the Sim requirement exists (in this case a low appearance[/] of the Nar priority), then he may make decisions that annoy the other players.
Any clearer?
I would further go so far as to say that, when push comes to shove in the Nar/Sim battle, Sim almost always wins. It's a rare group with a Hybrid agenda that won't put Sim as the higher of the two priorities when there's a potential conflict. Why? Because Sim is not about "adherence to established themes." So, yes, if that's part of the GNS definition then my definition is different (though I could show you how I get from point A to point B). Sim is about eliminating the appearance of certain metagame elements of decision-making.
Thus, when Ron says that you can "accidentally" create theme via Actor stance play, I agree. All this is saying is that there are moments of high congruence between Sim and Nar. And since it is possible to create theme "accidentally" then sticking by the Sim mode, when a Nar-only possibility presents itself as an alternative, is a safer choice. Because it's the only choice of the two with a chance of satisfying both requirements.
Are there Sim-only decisions? Decisions made purely to limit the appearance of unwanted metagame elements, and for no other reason? I suppose there are. But I don't think anyone plays this way (Beeg Horseshoe). That is, if actor stance can get you theme playing "what my character would do", then why not have both?
Now befor MJ gets all over me with the I play Sim and only Sim rap, Consider that "discovery" can be a theme. Basically, Ron has made Narrativism so large that everyone is playing Narrativist or Gamist all the time, IMO. The only time they wouldn't be would be if play was only ever about things so mundane that they couldn't be said to be creating theme by playing "what my character would do." So, uh, if play was all about living the life of a normal guy, who never had anything exciting happen to him in a way that an observer might find emotionally engaging (like a fight), then it would be Sim. But as soon as it's about discovery, or anything else, it's Nar. This coincides with the "Oh, shit, I'm playing Nar" idea.
So, again, I say that this is why I'm trying to get people to see Sim as something different. It's not what you do with power (win tell stories), but the manner in which you do it, such that it doesn't void the sense of immersion.
And again, before anyone can jump on that, the level is simply different for each group and individual as to what sort of thing triggers the problem with the Sim requirement, and in what ammounts. So just because you don't personally have the Sim requirement for deep immersion as it's being described, doesn't mean that there's not some point of plausibility at which you won't balk. Even the post-modern game could be defined as a low level of plausibility.
Am I still spinning?
Mike