![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
I think Immersionism is a little tiny subset of Narrativism, where you forego most narrative tools in order to get whatever it is you get out of playing from inside a character.
Narrativist design can give you these tools to confront theme:
1: Meaningful decision making
2: The ability to push your own character into situations the character "didn't expect" or "didn't want"
3: A compelling character
4: Collaboration with other players to have events take place
5: Unsympathetic characters you want to see go down
Immersion gives you 1 and 3. By deciding to use Immersion techniques, all you're really doing is deciding to forego 2, 4, and 5. Apparently, there's pleasure to be gained from being inside Your Guy and wanting what sie wants, which I'm willing to grant. Apparently, that makes up for the other missing elements.
And if you tell me that Immersion gives you 2,4, and/or 5, I'm willing to say, "OK, call it Immersion if you want," and we can chalk it up to conflicting syntax without conflicting semantics.
I'm curious about games where the internal state of the character matters so much mechanically. Are there any? That aren't in Finnish?
February 16 2006, 15:28:21 UTC 6 years ago
Immersionism seems to me to work best when everyone's acting, even if they aren't all immersionists.
February 16 2006, 15:42:06 UTC 6 years ago
I'm of two minds, neither of them charitable to "Immersionists":
Mind 1: Immersionism is a limited toolset within Narrativism.
Mind 2: Immersionism is a fabrication of Immersionists who are really describing Narrativism in different terms and for some reason think they're onto something unique.
In any event, this came up because Immersionists seem to decry resources that aren't named after stuff about the character, and I don't care what it's named after as long as those resources give appropriate narrative control.
February 16 2006, 15:54:55 UTC 6 years ago
To link up with the "Constructive Denial" language that seems to be the New Sim, it's a very aggressive tactic of denying anything that doesn't directly relate to the experience of being the character.
February 16 2006, 16:04:07 UTC 6 years ago
I'm willing — no, eager — to see a rule set that uses this to good effect. I'd really like to see that. I think that would rock my world.
February 16 2006, 19:28:44 UTC 6 years ago
However, you seem to imply that a limited toolset is a bad thing. I don't think that restrictions are bad for creative endeavors. Restrictions narrow focus. They don't hold you back, but rather guide you to spotlight a particular part of the process. As long as what you're focusing on interests you, that can be a good thing. Immersionism lets a player ignore all the stuff about where your bullet went or what's at the end of the hallway, and concentrate on the personality and decisions of the character.
February 16 2006, 21:19:40 UTC 6 years ago
Huh?
I'm saying it's a small thing.
I love focused design. I'd love to hear how some of this makes it into actual systems. Because my hypothesis is that it doesn't; that there are no Immersionist RPG designs. That a bunch of people are getting really into their characters and forgetting that they're doing other stuff, that's cool. That's great, even! But when it comes to game design you have to design with both eyes open. You can't hand-wave away the structure of a story believing that somehow, if the players play their characters right, one will emerge.
Maybe this can happen.
But listen, this is where this discussion comes from:
I was having a discussion with someone on the Forge about a game design they were working on. They said that they wanted Big Powerful Stuff in the game — magic weapons and the like — but that players couldn't have this stuff at character creation because it would give them too much power. This spun off into a PM exchange (which was quite interesting — I'm only bitching about the part that bothered me) where I was saying, "All the stuff on your character sheet is stuff that you, the player, can use to make stuff happen in the process of play. There's no reason to tie your ability to make stuff happen in the story to your character's fictional abilities."
And this dude, a Suomi, said that it would hurt immersion.
Bullshit, I call. It's a thuggish method to keep players from having any control over what's happening in the story.
If you like, texture those powers richly. But "My father's shattered sword" is just as important to the story as "My father's sword, reforged." But those are areas of narrative authority that a player has, not possessions belonging to a character.
So this makes me deeply suspect the "immersion" thing as a ploy to keep players' heads down and not take too much control over the events of the game.
Hey, you Danes, Finns, Swedes, and Norwegians! Prove me wrong! Show me a game where immersion gives players control over what's going on. Show me a game where the players' designs on the story as a whole aren't thwarted by enforced Think Small posters. I want to see a design. I want to hear actual play. "I like it" isn't enough. I like it too. I like being in character. That doesn't mean that I have to forfeit the rest of my power to feel it.
February 16 2006, 22:17:44 UTC 6 years ago
Well, for actual play reports, you can read my Knutepunkt 2005 Report. In all of the larps there except "The Weakest Link", the plot was strongly controlled by the players. In two cases (Night Fever and the collective organized larp), there was no input during the game from external organizers.
Most of the Scandanavians don't publish their scenarios as pre-made designs, but you can find material on "The Upgrade!" from jeepen.org. You can go to Shifting Forest Storyworks for all of the Parlor larp designs.
February 17 2006, 03:39:11 UTC 6 years ago
They said that they wanted Big Powerful Stuff in the game — magic weapons and the like — but that players couldn't have this stuff at character creation because it would give them too much power.
OK, so right here is the thuggish keeping players from having control. Why shouldn't the players have this power? There are plenty of games which give the players uber-powerful magic weapons from the start. It seems like your logic is "This jackass uses 'immersion' as an argument -- therefore anyone who values 'immersion' must be a jackass".
February 16 2006, 20:31:10 UTC 6 years ago
I think both are rather broader churches than either cares to admit and I think overlaps depend very much on your own personal definition of what narrativism and immersionism mean.
I also don't believe in the one true way, even powergamers and min maxers have their place - albeit a long way from my table, unless done with good humour.
I've mainly stayed away from the debate because it usually ends with someone telling me that either I'm not an immersionist, or what I'm doing is merely a perversion of something else, something else that is usually held to be better (mostly implicitly but sometime explicitly too).
Obviously, you're not guilty of any of the above so I probably shouldn't have said any of that here. Sorry.
February 16 2006, 20:45:13 UTC 6 years ago
I'm not saying that it can't be done. I'm not saying that it's useless to try. I'm saying that I remain skeptical that the phenomenon even exists, except in some sort of "creative denial" sense.
February 16 2006, 21:04:39 UTC 6 years ago
Cuz what I see is a lot of people saying "You know what I like? I like being deep inside my character. We should have a noun for this."
But we all like that. We all like being into a character. That's why we role-play instead of just moving pieces around on a board. We like to imagine we're there, doing things for the reason the character would. That's fun. But it's fun that, fortunately, serves the larger purposes inside Narrativism.
February 17 2006, 03:15:16 UTC 6 years ago
Hardly anypne is charitable to immersionists, probably for historical reasons. I think it's possibly because early on in theory some of them claimed to have the high ground with the one true way of playing. Now that narrativism is the one true method, the immersionists are getting back what they gave out.
Where did you see or hear of this "one true way" stuff from immersionists? For example, on rec.games.frp.advocacy, it was David Berkman's outspoken rants for story as the "one true way" which prompted a reaction from people who disagreed. And our reaction was never to claim that immersion was the other one true way, but to promote a model that story, world, and game are all valid approaches to role-playing. The term "immersionist" as far as I know first appeared in Petter Bøckman's adaptation of my Threefold Model FAQ. James Wallis did push mask play as a cool possibility, but he still characterized it as a niche option within a wide range of play.
I know for certain that "story" one-true-wayists date back at least to the 1992, and we had to argue pretty strongly back then that it was valid to play for things other than story/drama/narrative. Where are you getting your picture of history from?
February 16 2006, 16:04:30 UTC 6 years ago
February 16 2006, 16:05:42 UTC 6 years ago
I can have the same mood twice, can't I?
February 16 2006, 16:48:20 UTC 6 years ago
February 16 2006, 16:49:38 UTC 6 years ago
February 16 2006, 17:12:58 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
February 16 2006, 17:39:47 UTC 6 years ago
It seems to me that Immersionism doesn't give any other tool than to achieve deep sympathy with a character- or as Adam Dray as called it, "Channeling" the character.
February 16 2006, 17:48:21 UTC 6 years ago
To paraphrase the way Thor (the Norse god himself!) said it: sometimes I have to view my character as a character, and not as a guy, because guys are cowards and I want to drive my guy into a conflict he'd hate to have.
I'm not convinced that this Immersionist thing is nonsense. But I will be if it turns out it's a) a lie, because players are doing the other parts and not admitting it to each other or b) they don't have any way to make gnarly conflict happen.
February 16 2006, 18:00:09 UTC 6 years ago
1. Emotional connection with the game (what we call Engagement)
2. Emotional connection with the character (I care about the character)
3. Emotional sympathy with the character (I mirror emotions that I think my character "would feel")
4. Strict Actor Stance (and minimal mechanics and player to player signalling)
It's when you're operating from #4 that we're talking about extreme sports kind of roleplay in.
Unfortunately, I think, Immersion is the new "Story", and most of the discussion thus far has been mired in everyone talking about different things. If anyone decides to nail shit down and really analyze beyond that, we'll have to see.
February 16 2006, 20:24:09 UTC 6 years ago
I think "Immersion" as an ultimate goal is bullshit. It isn't possible. And part of the whole school thing is to ignore the "real" world (except the GM, naturally, whose word is law) ... rolls eyes.
Someone can deny that they are a player, but they are. And how you can react as someone else is beyond me. You react as you and based on your experiences and perceptions; no matter how much you deny it, or try to put a mask on it, it's true. You can try and get inside a character, sure, and think about people you are not. But, ultimately, you aren't them.
The big elephant is in the middle of the room. Live with it.
I wrote a brief topic about it on the Critical Miss forums. I'm trying to see if James Wallis still believes in Mask Play, I want to see what his considered argument is.
February 17 2006, 03:29:40 UTC 6 years ago
OK, you're speaking as though the character were something external to me as a player, which is nonsensical. The character is a part of me -- a facet of me. There is nothing about the character that is not physically inside my body.
So, yes, I am them. They are me.
If you have a problem with Wallis' metaphoric language, let me try another one on you. This is a quote from Lajos Egri -- the drama theorist that Ron Edwards used as the basis for his writings on Narrativism. Egri said about dramatic art that, "The first step is to make your reader or viewer identify your character as someone he knows. Step two -- if the author can make the audience imagine that what is happening can happen to him, the situation will be permeated with aroused emotion and the viewer will experience a sensation so great that he will feel not as a spectator but as the participant of an exciting drama before him." So Egri sets himself the same "bullshit" goal -- to make the viewer feel as though the action were actually real.
Obviously no sane person who goes to see a play or movie literally loses their real-world senses this way -- but they experience real emotions and possibly have real insights on life, which is the point of the metaphor.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
February 16 2006, 22:42:12 UTC 6 years ago
Note: I agree that there are multiple concepts of immersion. I consider myself a mild immersionist. For what I get out of it, your two minds are both off the mark, and I would take the Finn's comment of "tying your ability to make stuff happen in the story to your character's fictional abilities" as almost definitional of immersionism. (But not quite, because there are also issues of knowledge, communication, perception, etc.)
For me it's pretty simple: let's say we're roleplaying a scenario based on the Cuban Missile Crisis, with a group of players representing the upper echelons of the US executive branch and military. There may or may not be a separate group(s) representing the Soviet leadership, Castro, etc. The goal is an experiential lesson about decisionmaking under stress and uncertainty. If I, as the Secretary of Defense, can roll dice or play a card that lets me control whether a U-2 is shot down, or whether a member of the Politburo has a heart attack, then that will interfere with my ability to experience the decisionmaking process, as well as the emotional and intellectual state, of a real person in my position.
February 17 2006, 19:36:25 UTC 6 years ago
See my answer to John, above.
February 21 2006, 02:22:12 UTC 6 years ago
Regarding your conversation with the guy from Finland, I'd have simply asked him if it breaks immersion to have to decide to play the game, or create/generate characters, etc. There's a bunch of stuff even the most die-hard immersionists have to do in order to start playing. Those are the thin edge of the wedge toward communicating between non-immersionists and immersionists, IMO--you have to ask: well, what are you willing to do at the metagame level to have fun?