Joshua A.C. Newman ([info]nikotesla) wrote,
@ 2006-02-16 09:39:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current mood:questant
Entry tags:rpg theory

Immersionism
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?


(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]gbsteve
2006-02-16 03:28 pm UTC (link)
Immersionism isn't much use on its own. Being the character doesn't get you very far unless you also interact with the SIS in some effective way and this means to some extent functioning on two levels, the one where you think as the PC and the one where you think as the player. It's at this latter level that you can make decisions that create the environment for decisions at the former level.

Immersionism seems to me to work best when everyone's acting, even if they aren't all immersionists.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 03:42 pm UTC (link)
See, Steve, this is the thing I don't get: if you're looking at the game as a player, you're not "immersed" right? So then what's the difference between Immersion and Narrativist play where the themes you want to confront are all personal?

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tigerbunny_db
2006-02-16 03:54 pm UTC (link)
Nah, there's definitely this whole other GNS-Sim component to at least some self-described immersion - exploration and celebration for its own sake, without any attention paid to whether the character is compelling or decisions are meaningful except within the context of the fiction.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 04:04 pm UTC (link)
The problem is, now I've said this, and it seems unbearably boring to me. I mean, I guess from a clinical perspective it's a little interesting. But exploring a character irrespective of hir value in fiction seems dull.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jhkimrpg
2006-02-16 07:28 pm UTC (link)
Well, I guess I'd go with #1 -- though I'd add that I don't think immersion is limited to Narrativism.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 09:19 pm UTC (link)
Bad thing?

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jhkimrpg
2006-02-16 10:17 pm UTC (link)
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.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jhkimrpg
2006-02-17 03:39 am UTC (link)
By the way, regarding your discussion with that guy on his game design. I don't see how the immersion thing has to do with the power issue. You describe it as:
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".

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]gbsteve
2006-02-16 08:31 pm UTC (link)
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. Which is kind of understandable but not terribly constructive.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 08:45 pm UTC (link)
Consider this post a big "I don't get it". Maybe there's something good to get that I don't see. But my personal experience is that getting really into a character stems from a comprehensive understanding of the world, irrespective of the fictional senses of a fictional entity.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 09:04 pm UTC (link)
... the counter to this being rules that show how Immersion works. A game that actually makes this happen and rewards it.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jhkimrpg
2006-02-17 03:15 am UTC (link)
[info]gbsteve wrote...
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?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]blankedyblank
2006-02-16 04:04 pm UTC (link)
hey, weren't you questant before?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 04:05 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I think so. It seemed familiar when I wrote it.

I can have the same mood twice, can't I?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blankedyblank
2006-02-16 04:48 pm UTC (link)
Sure. But then it is a mood and not nonsense. Or have they all been moods all this time?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 04:49 pm UTC (link)
They are all moods.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blankedyblank
2006-02-16 05:12 pm UTC (link)
Oh! I have learned something here today.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 08:40 pm UTC (link)
We all learned something today. Like, that I can eat four eggs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]yeloson
2006-02-16 05:39 pm UTC (link)
Doesn't 1 & 3 depend upon how well you can get engineered into meaningful conflict? I mean, Immersion alone cuts you from a lot of tools that help you GET meaningful conflict, in order make meaningful decision, and/or show that you have a compelling character.

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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-16 05:48 pm UTC (link)
Yeah. I guess I'm assuming some sort of magic, mind-reading GM who can generate conflict for you. It's just barely conceivable that you could get compelling character from conflicts that you barely have an interest in.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]yeloson
2006-02-16 06:00 pm UTC (link)
The way I see it is that the word Immersionism has been thrown around to mean different things by different people. I've seen it used commonly to mean:

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]boxninja
2006-02-16 08:24 pm UTC (link)
I'm with you on this one, Joshua.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jhkimrpg
2006-02-17 03:29 am UTC (link)
You can try and get inside a character, sure, and think about people you are not. But, ultimately, you aren't them.

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.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tigerbunny_db
2006-02-17 04:25 pm UTC (link)
John, that's exactly it, though. Immersion at least seems to break the essential character of the roleplaying form - that participants are simultaneously both audience and creator - by insisting on wholly entering the audience mode. Somebody, somehow, is authoring the character's actions. Immersion is a hard thing to talk about, because it seems to deny the authorial role that absolutely must be happening somehow.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jhkimrpg
2006-02-17 04:59 pm UTC (link)
You're not making any sense. An immersed player is an active creator, not audience. By speaking and acting in-character, I am generating fiction. I don't see what you're confused about. This isn't called "author stance" in Forge terminology simply because someone decided to call it "actor stance" instead -- but it isn't like traditional film or theater because there is no prewritten lines or plot that I am following.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-17 05:57 pm UTC (link)
Ah!

OK, John, I think I'm starting to understand.

Given that you have a bunch of pre-set motivations, probably in the form of relationships between characters, a story is inevitable because all of the metagame aspects are dealt with before the action starts. You make sure you have a situation that can't be solved without a lot of collision between the characters.

What you gain: an enhanced ability to experience the emotions of the character in the course of play.

What you lose: flexible control of the story once it's begun — you "don't" know anything your character doesn't know, and you "can't" make anything happen that your character can't make happen.

How to ameliorate the loss: use minimized mechanics and other techniques that do, in fact, give you some story control ("I really want to meet Riia because she pushes my character's buttons so I'll conveniently enter the garage while she's there"), but don't yank you out of the situation.

Is this the kind of thing you're talking about?

Or are you talking about the joy of being someone else for a time? Because, if that's the case, you would experience the same joy from playing a character who totally doesn't interest you as one who shared personal history or some converse of personal history. Which I doubt.

For me, this puts Immersion in the class of Technique, not agenda.

Let me know if I'm catching up, John.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-17 07:32 pm UTC (link)
(Above, when I say "story" I mean "some sort of engaging coherence to the events that take place in the fiction". Nothing else.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jhkimrpg
2006-02-18 09:47 am UTC (link)
[info]nikotesla wrote...
Given that you have a bunch of pre-set motivations, probably in the form of relationships between characters, a story is inevitable because all of the metagame aspects are dealt with before the action starts. You make sure you have a situation that can't be solved without a lot of collision between the characters.
(Above, when I say "story" I mean "some sort of engaging coherence to the events that take place in the fiction". Nothing else.)

Thanks for the clarification. And yes, I think that's very much on-target. Yes, you make sure that there is a situation which is set up to be interesting. In addition, games will often (but not always) have someone who is not immersed who is keeping an eye on how things are progressing to consider things like pacing, characters moving out of scope, and so forth. In tabletop, this is generally the GM and possibly some players who are in less involved roles. Larps will sometimes have a director or organizer looking on. Note that a larp director generally isn't there to drive action, but simply to keep the situations and conflicts driven. For example, in the Parlor Larp series, the director cannot engage in challenges, and the director's NPCs are strictly background scenery, never the opposition.

Players are also able to do a number of tasks within immersion -- varying depending on the player and the techniques in use. Immersive players aren't insane -- they can keep in mind things like not hurt other players, respect the game boundaries, and other directives.

Also, remember that immersion is not a programmed simulation of some personality parameters run by a computer. It is a creative act and personal expression done by a human being. That's a powerful generator of interesting meaning, often intended but also often subconcious. In my experience, making immersion fit into a structured story is difficult, but making it produce interesting stuff (which I'm pretty sure fits your "engaging coherence") is not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]boxninja
2006-02-18 06:21 pm UTC (link)
I think I'm on the same page here. But I should clarify.

I think complete immersion is unattainable -- because at each moment you are (have to be?) in some way aware of the non-immersed particpant(s), though you choose to ignore any "out of character" information when playing. Does that make sense?

The character is a part of me -- a facet of me.

That's my exact point. So I don't disagree with you on that at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ewilen
2006-02-16 10:42 pm UTC (link)
You might want to visit my LJ and click on the immersion tag at the left. (Or just click here.) There's a good amount of discussion in some of the entries, plus links to elsewhere. The earlier stuff is more apropos.

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.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nikotesla
2006-02-17 07:36 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, OK. So it's a technique used to gain a particular understanding of a situation and power over it.

See my answer to John, above.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ewilen
2006-02-21 02:22 am UTC (link)
I'd go with understanding or insight, not sure about power, but I agree with John that your reply above is very much on mark. Except that I'd say immersion, if viewed as a technique, doesn't necessarily include making sure you have an interesting situation beforehand, and it also doesn't necessarily have, as John says, a GM or someone else who manages the situation to maintain interest. Except, if you don't have those things, you're going to have to be lucky to get anything interesting happening.

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?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(32 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…