Okay, now that the atmosphere has cleared since my summary dismissal of Bruce Baugh, I'd like to bring up this ever-sticky topic and try to talk sensibly about it.

From the Forge provisional glossary:
<B>Immersion </B>
This term has no single definition. Some uses, among others, include: (a) undivided attention to the Shared Imagined Space, (b) the absence of overtly stating features of Social Contract and Creative Agenda, (c) strong identification with one's imaginary character. See <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?t=4640">thoughts on why immersion is a tar baby</a> by Emily Care and <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=8022.0">Immersion and story</a> by John Kim.

As a basis for this thread, I'd like to begin by asking if anybody has any problems with this gloss.

Choosing my words very carefully--it still seems to me that 'immersion' is a highly subjective term, and watching many debates have only confirmed me in this opinion. Therefore, I'd like to suggest that we either (a) define more precise terms or (b) agree to stop using the term except with the understanding that it means different things to different people.

As a preliminary, I will state that, according to the above gloss, I have myself been concerned with 'immersion' (in all three forms) at various time and places. I can also see how it might become a major priority for certain groups. I can even see how mechanics can influence your perception--I can't take systems that divide characters into 'classes' seriously, for example. The fact that many people claim to play 'immersively' with D&D, however, demonstrates to me that this feeling is entirely subjective. All I can really say is that class systems disturb me, and this is less than useful.

Perhaps appropriately, many people seem to feel a strong ownership of the term. I think that this derives from realising at some level that the term is subjective. That's cool--if you don't want to destroy the mystique, it's your head. Ideally, I'd like to see some recognition that mystique is what we're talking about. Now, I may be a crass materialist, but I'm quite prepared to recognise the irrational and the beautiful in life. So I don't think trying to lose yourself in the Allness is a negligible and unworthy goal (that's why I like to drop acid now and then).

So, any comments?

Really? I think that one of the most common complaints I've seen is that eg setting stakes disturbs immersion. Clearly, this is a problem because it forces people to deal with social contract issues right then and there.

But it's another example, because others have said that setting stakes doesn't disturb their immersion at all.

I think that there are those who see any discussion of "the meta" as disruptive to their immersion.

However, while not entirely sure I can't take the other side of my own argument, I think that there are immersionist elements in all players as well as for want of a better term analytical elements.

I whole heartedly encourage further discussion if for no other reason than a better understanding of this part of play will help other to develope this part of play.

The parts of play which we have taken, in the last generation of games, to be reductionist about, may also be able to function in a more gestalt manner, and this might make a better game some day.

Matt -I think that there can also be those who like metagame discussion and are immersionist.

For example, and this is completely out of my ass, there might be players who, for whatever reason, decide that they want there two characters to hook up in the game. The metagame discussion need not interfere with the immersion if their immersion is based on identification with their chartacter.

however if one players' imersion was based on complete in game causality, and the other player doesn't justify their actions, then they might have problems.

I think I just saved us from a long and drawn out Story Games Flame War.

I certainly hope not. Not that you saved us, but that there was a situation to save.

You raise a point that has been raised many a time, though. Is one sort of 'immersion' really only a technique towards the sim CA? Or even a type of sim?

As a self-identified 'thematic' player, do you actually refer to 'immersion' at all?

Is one sort of 'immersion' really only a technique towards the sim CA? Or even a type of sim?

Looks to me as if the answer might be "yes".

If immersion is a Creative Agenda, then to my eyes it's related to Sim the most. Is it the primary aesthetic goal of the immersing player? If so, then it looks like Exploration-squared. "Living" in the SIS. Experiencing the Dream. Those who would like to escape the label of "Sim" might call it Immersionism (note that my Big-Model-Fu is weak, we might already have that one).

If immersion is a Technical Agenda, then it's probably less closely related to Sim (duh). However, which CA would it support best? What are its limits? If the player's default mode of play is as immersive as possible, when does the Gam/Nar aesthetic (of enjoying the challenge/creating the story) actually "happen"? During play itself? As a kind of post-play reflection? I think that continual immersion in most cases is not well-suited (as a technique) to actively support Gam/Nar play (to some extent). It is well-suited to certain types of Sim play (at the very least for exploration of character, setting, color and even situation).

Maybe labeling any type of immersion as "Sim" won't do much good, but it is more closely related to Sim than to the other two guys, as far as my understanding of GNS goes.

MarK.

Well? Come on, then! Here's your chance!

A better understanding of each other? What I'd like from you in particular is to break down what you mean when you say you are 'immersionist in practice.'

Can I just point once again to my original post? I don't disagree with you, thor, but first we have to get on the same page about 'immersion'. How do people make games for 'immersionists' when we're not sure if said 'immersionists' are even talking about the same thing?

Thanks for the answer. I have to go to bed right now, so I can't consider it yet.

Try to keep on track, folks. Once again: any time you might use the word 'immersion', stop a minute and think about whether there is a more precise term. Consider, for example, that while Jess's use of the word would be correct for some people, others are going to disagree.

I haven't yet defined 'immersion' in this thread. I'm pointing to the Forge glossary because it's a useful start and it links to a couple of good threads. The question is whether it's a useful term at all and how it might be made more useful.

Also, channeling Andy for a moment: what can we get out of a discussion of this term that will help us in a practical sense as designers, GMs and players?

Thanks Jess- Yeah, Thor and Droog seem to have OK answers for now, so we'll try and see what we can get out of it.

But guys, Jonathan's right: It's IMO rude to talk about "immersionism" without any immersionists contributing to the thread (or if not rude, then skewed, and we need to proceed with caution). It's like the reverse of what happens when we see "GNS" "discussed" on EnWorld or RPGNet: A stoning.

So as long as we can try to get down to the intentions of "Immersionists" without setting up their viewpoint for straw-man arguments or flying atomic piledrivers, I'm sure that if we proceed carefully something interesting might shake loose.

-Andy

As someone who plays with lots of self-identified immersionists, I have to suggest that perhaps one of the things we should start off with in this thread is talking about specific techniques and the effects they generate. Starting off with the dictionary definition while we're all folks in a dark tent feeling different parts of an elephant is going to be frustrating, no joke.

OTOH, if we talk about specific techniques that we use, that we don't use, and what kinds of effects they have on play we may be able to at one and the same time gain more understanding of the different kinds of immersion and of ways to functionally play with immersionists (for those of us who aren't) or how to improve our own play (for those of us who are).

Just a suggestion.

As this guy named Ron Edwards once said, when he proposed this classification system called GNS, "Label play styles; don't label people."

It's a good thing he said that, because otherwise this GNS thing could have led to a whole lot of unproductive arguments on the internet.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Okay, done giggling now.

Brand, I like your idea about discussing specific practices, except that I have absolutely no idea where to begin. I don't call myself an immersionist (or a narrativist, or a gamist, or an anything-else-ist) or explicitly identify with a role-playing community beyond that of the people I happen to game with, so I wouldn't even know what I'm doing that's different from what other people do. Can you do your awesome ask-provocative-and-interesting-questions thing, please? :)

Mo, I agree with just about everything you've said, at least for the majority of my play. But what, to you, are mechanics that support immersive play? What mechanics break immersion for you?

--Jess

Rob's milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

It's a good thing he said that, because otherwise this GNS thing could have led to a whole lot of unproductive arguments on the internet.

Thanks Rob, I needed that.

Regarding immersion, I've found that most groups I've associated with that are the heaviest on what I identify as immersion are the ones that are the clearest about community building and trust issues and thus have the strongest social contracts.

Thomas:

Good catch. Mechanics that *inhibit* immersive play. If they just provide no support for immersive play, but don't inhibit, that's OK. I can usually do fine on my own.

Jess:

That's a good question, and asks an answer I've been looking to give for a while. I had meant to return to it over on Sin Aesthetics a long while back, but never got there. Suffice to say I don't have a comprehensive answer.

This is going to result in a different answer for different immersionists. For me: I don't mind doing meta work most of the time. I have no trouble at all verbalizing what is going on with the character, I know the character's dramatic stakes, I know the points of dramatic tension, and I can talk all day about them. I don't have trouble winning or losing, and am known for walking my characters into darkness to bring on the pain.

However, I do have trouble when the system requires a constant interchange of mechanics throughout the immersion period (BtI does this). I emotionally socket to the game via the character, and that's where I need my attention focused to "feel" the socket working. Games that do this make me have to put my attention into the interchange of mechanical transactions rather than in engaging me via the character.

Also in this category are overly complicated mechanics that break the emotional continuity of the scene. Charts and heavy modifiers are killers in this respect. Marvel Facerip is a good example of this... or Exalted. Exalted's combat drives me nuts. I'm there. I'm immersed, there's a crescendo going the emotional intensity is high, the drama is epic, the story is raging. I'm feeling and acting HARDCORE! and then oh, wait, we have to stop and reference charts and figure out what combination of skills and attribites, and how many dice, and roll a thousand of them and determine success and ping and soak and damage in task after task after task after task (it's like a beaurocratic nightmare) before we can settle the dramatic stakes, buy which time the dramatic tension and the in-character emotional continuity is lost in a barage of numbers and game processes.

That doesn't mean that I don't like dice, or rolling them, or task sequenceses or mechanical processes. I just like ones that don't suck the vitality out of the emotional investment in the scene. I especially like ones that don't require breaking out at all, or minimally to get to resolution. It's also a bonus if task resolution can be nested inside conflict resolution, and if the general sense of success or failure can be sensed from the outset.

I loves me some Dog's Conflict Resolution mechanics for this. I've got my game on, I'm comfortably immersed, I'm socketed terrifically. Sometimes I can declare my stakes in the game out of the mouth of the character and not have to break out at all. When I do, it's a simple declaration before I'm back in. There's more direct connection between what I'm doing and what I'm using. I roll them out and see my dice and see the GM's dice and I know where the conflict is likely to fall. In the task by task interplay of bidding and raising and escalating I can stay immersed and in the moment. Resolution happens silently in front of me. It's entirely an additive process... it does not break continuity or distract me from what's critical (to me) and (I think) to the game.

Gaming, and especially immersion, is all about getting to my F and staying there for the duration fo the game.

Excuse me, but I'd like to chew on some stuff here if I may. I'm seeing here (and in other discussions about immersion, both online and offline) several things I think should be pointed out.

One has to do with immersive faculties (is this the best term?) of players. The consistency, ease of, and intensity of immersion. Almost everyone, it seems, has it differently. Some don't mind "letting go" of immersive state as much as others. Some "slip" into the state easily, for others it takes time. Some can "hold" the state consistently and for a long period, some are easily distracted or are able to handle shorter periods. Some are aware of others' immersion, some aren't (for some the lack of it might even "break" immersion). For some there are levels of immersion, for others it's a binary state. Now, these are highly subjective, but I think also highly relevant factors when one wishes to determine where the "immersive zone" lies for others in the group. Joe and Sally can both say they're into immersion, but their immersion might be very different on many levels. (I think this ties into what Emily says on the Forge tar baby thread).

Another has to do with resolution. I see many immersive players pointing out that focusing on the mechanical process of a game has a potential to disturb the immersive experience. Does this make Drama resolution mechanics generally more supportive of immersive play? Fortune mechanics less supportive (unless they are somehow tied into the SIS, such as cards in a Western-themed game)? Or is it only about "crunch"? If so, how much crunch can one hope to get away with? (Subjectivity rears its ugly head, but I'm just tossing the ball here).

Last, but not least: I don't style myself an immersionist, not in the way people have described it here. However, I do like the game world to take on a "solid" quality, to feel as if "I'm in that place", and not necessarily "I'm that person". What are the relationships between the two? How is "setting immersion" relevant to "character immersion"?

MarK.

MarK said: However, I do like the game world to take on a "solid" quality, to feel as if "I'm in that place", and not necessarily "I'm that person". What are the relationships between the two? How is "setting immersion" relevant to "character immersion"?
My answer would be that it seems that they're different sockets, but that they act in similar ways to gain focus on the game. However, because setting is often less immediate it is probably easier to stay "immersed" in setting than in character when faced with outside forces.

This is all just wild guessing, btw.

In terms of how well, long, easily and so on people can stay immersed, I'd say parts of it probably have to do with how they socket into game and what kind of skills they have developed. Believe it or don't there are large parts of immersionsit play that are highly skilled practices, and the different types of techniques (and the different skill levels of those using them) will have a lot to do with how well any individual can immerse in any given situation.

I'd also guess that there are probably ties to the way you approach game. People that want to think their way to emotional investment in game will have a different focus and approach than those who want to feel their way to emotional investment in game. (This may have something to do with Claire's statement about "doing" rather than "thinking" -- Claire, let me know if you think that's wrong.) For more on feeling vs. thinking and such, check this post on Yud's Dice. (Yes, I promise I'll get to the second part eventually.)

KJ said: Brand, I like your idea about discussing specific practices, except that I have absolutely no idea where to begin. I don't call myself an immersionist (or a narrativist, or a gamist, or an anything-else-ist) or explicitly identify with a role-playing community beyond that of the people I happen to game with, so I wouldn't even know what I'm doing that's different from what other people do. Can you do your awesome ask-provocative-and-interesting-questions thing, please? :)
Uh... maybe. Here is a try at it.

When I play RPGs I think of what I am doing in terms of story and my investment into the story (I have a story socket into RPGs, it is where I get my groove on). So when I approach game, even as a player, I approach it in terms of telling a story first and having a character, setting, or campaign second, third, and fourth, with the mechanics focus of the game being important only in so far as it supporsts my a and b priorities. Because of this I do not think of my character as an individual to get to know, inhabit, or understand through deep empathic projection (using the classical definition of empathy as: "The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation.") Character is important to me the same way it is as when I am wwriting a story -- character + situation = plot and all that. But to have a deep and abiding relationship with the character? It rarely happens, and even when it does it is not the object of my fun in the game.

This isn't to say that I won't get emotional about a character. In a good game I will, but it is because the story brings me to that emotionality, rather than the other way around. I cry when I watch Fellowship of the Ring and Boromir dies -- and I'd cry the same way in an RPG where I was playing Boromir. But I do so because of what the story has done, and then because of a sense of identification with what Boromir represents. So character is important, but not the thing that gives me my Fun Now in an RPG.

This also means that when I start playing a game in order to be excited about it I need to have some idea of the kinds of stories we're going to be able to tell. This is why premise (especially as forumlated here is so important to me: it lets me have an idea of the story, to engage with that quickly, and to build things that will fit that story and let me powerfully interact with it.

Now Mo, otoh, has a character socket into RPGs. She gets her emotional investment into game through her character. She needs to know her character before she can get excited about the story, she needs to have that empathic (remember my definition of empathy) connection to her character to get her Fun Now, and she needs to have a game that supports her ability to author her character without forcing her to constantly be reacting to the game by constructing it from the outside -- she needs to be able to construct it (at least partly) from the inside.

So, with that background, let me try for some questions.

When you think about game, what it is that you think about first that gets you excited? The characters? The story? The situation? The address of premise? The game mechanics? (Yes, we all probably think about all of those things -- which is most important?)

Is it most important before game? Durring game? After game?

When you play do you want to be feeling it right now, or thinking through it right now so that you can get your emotional intensity later? Do you want to be doing, or thinking?

Do you get frustrated with meta game chatter? Short amounts of it? Long amounts of it? Would you be happy if 90% of game was IC, and only 10% talking about things meta-level? Would you be happy if 90% of game was OOC meta-level talk, and only 10% of it IC acting?

(At this point I'd strongly recommend to everyone that they check out the Nine Worlds Skype game mp3 as it gives a very strong representation of one kind of play that is relevant to what I am asking above.)

Do you strongly author your games, or do you like to have an organic game in which you react to the world? When/if you author, do you want to do it through your character or through meta-game controls? Both? Do you want to do it explicitly (I am going to do this) or implicity (oh wow, I just did that!)?

It it important to you to feel strongly emotionally connected to your character? Before you start? As you play? In reflection looking back on the game? Do you get that connection by understanding your character externally? Internally? By seeing the world through your character's eyes? By seeing the character through the eyes of the world, of the story, of the mechanics?

Do you ever want to be your character? Understand your character? Use your character as an external controller?

Is your character your avatar? Your voice in the world? Your direct voice into the world (ie the character is just a chance to play you in a different place)? Is your character a character you play to learn something or explore something? Is that something internal to the character, or part of situation, story, or world? Or is the character something that you get to be so that you aren't yourself? For what purpouse do you not want to be yourself?

(For the above if anyone is having trouble seeing some of the different types of answers that might come to those questions, I recommend reading this thread on Fair Game. There will be other answers than those, and some of them could be very positive -- and I'd love to hear them.)

Um... there are probably more, and I'm sure I'm missing some obvious ones, but that should be a place to start.

Interestingly the Skype game (which I'm involved in) is only illustrative of how I play sometimes. I don't know what that says, but I'm sure it's something cool.

Thomas

When you think about game, what it is that you think about first that gets you excited? The characters? The story? The situation? The address of premise? The game mechanics? (Yes, we all probably think about all of those things -- which is most important?)

Is it most important before game? Durring game? After game?

The trickiest is that these things feed each other. Characters just sitting around with no situation are dull, but a good situation highlights the characters. I focus on different ones for different games. So, for example, in Buffy the story and themes were very prominent. But most commonly my focus is on the characters.

When you play do you want to be feeling it right now, or thinking through it right now so that you can get your emotional intensity later? Do you want to be doing, or thinking?

Doing, most certainly. I often opt for an impulsive character for this reason, because I like to have actions going on.

Do you get frustrated with meta game chatter? Short amounts of it? Long amounts of it? Would you be happy if 90% of game was IC, and only 10% talking about things meta-level? Would you be happy if 90% of game was OOC meta-level talk, and only 10% of it IC acting?

I tend to get frustrated with out-of-game chatter -- particularly pure digressions (i.e. talk about some movie or whatever) and rules discussion in the middle of the game. I don't generally mind narration or commentary on the action though as long as it is relevant. I also don't mind slotting time to handle pure mechanical or background discussion as long as it is clearly separated from the game action.

Do you strongly author your games, or do you like to have an organic game in which you react to the world? When/if you author, do you want to do it through your character or through meta-game controls? Both? Do you want to do it explicitly (I am going to do this) or implicity (oh wow, I just did that!)?

Hm. I generally prefer the focus to be on character choices or actions rather than external circumstances or events. So I would say I prefer to strongly author games through in-character actions. I'm not sure I get the explicit vs. implicit part. I prefer to clearly state character action, which I guess is explicit (?).

(Incidentally, I've encountered a curious attitude from some people regarding authorship. Some people will say that if you declare something which your character would say, then you're not authoring. That seems very strange to me.)

It it important to you to feel strongly emotionally connected to your character? Before you start? As you play? In reflection looking back on the game? Do you get that connection by understanding your character externally? Internally? By seeing the world through your character's eyes? By seeing the character through the eyes of the world, of the story, of the mechanics?

Do you ever want to be your character? Understand your character? Use your character as an external controller?

It's important to me to feel emotionally connected to the character during play. Before or after are interesting but not required. Um, I guess I tend to get that connection to the character internally -- because I don't usually get much from other people's descriptions for my character. However, I certainly get a lot out of other people speaking as their characters and/or the narrating background or action within the world.

I'm fairly Design-At-Start compared to Develop-In-Play, to use the rgfa terminology. So I like to have a fairly detailed character who will change and be filled in during play, but who is fairly coherent and detailed at the start.

Is your character your avatar? Your voice in the world? Your direct voice into the world (ie the character is just a chance to play you in a different place)? Is your character a character you play to learn something or explore something? Is that something internal to the character, or part of situation, story, or world? Or is the character something that you get to be so that you aren't yourself? For what purpouse do you not want to be yourself?

This seems to be a a subjective question about how I picture my character in relation to myself, right? I tend to picture a character as a piece of myself -- something which helps me reflect on my experiences as well as what I've been exposed to. I would say that whatever is there to explore is inside the character, but it can only be accessed by help from the situation, story, and world.

John,

Damn fine answers. So one more question: Would you consider yourself an immersionist? Immerionsit compatible? Non-immersionist? Anti-immersionist?

Brand_Robins wrote:
Damn fine answers. So one more question: Would you consider yourself an immersionist? Immerionsit compatible? Non-immersionist? Anti-immersionist?

I guess "immersionist-compatible" sounds good. I play a pretty wide variety of games -- including some that I find highly non-immersive, like D&D or Once Upon a Time. But I've also played being kids lost in the woods in winter by... walking around in the woods in winter, where every movement and word for a two hours is in-character.

Eliot,

I'm not fully sure what to make of the example. I think you're onto something (for some types of immersionists, at least) -- but I'm not sure what it is.

Do you think there is a difference between times when you chose to step out and times when you are forced to step out, in terms of how it effects your ability to stay in character flow?

Thanks, Brand. Go go structuring questions!

I have a variety of different ways that I play, but I definitely have themes that cross my various play-styles. When I have to choose a play-style to "speak with the voice of" (so to speak) then I will try to pick the one that seems most immersionist to me, I guess. :)

When you think about game, what it is that you think about first that gets you excited? The characters? The story? The situation? The address of premise? The game mechanics? (Yes, we all probably think about all of those things -- which is most important?)

As a GM (is it possible to be an immersionist GM?), it's almost always situation (or possibly story - I'm still a little shaky on the distinction). I want to put the characters into an interesting, concrete situation that's going to provoke them to do interesting things. The genre and feel of the game has a lot to do with this as well, though. For example, in the game of Nobilis that I'm running, I had the idea of a contest between Heaven and Hell to best embody their principles in a human life. I stuck the characters into the situation, put up an interesting prize as the stakes, and let 'em rip. But what was exciting to me was not only the situation that I put them in, and the story that I envisioned coming out of it (what is beauty? what is suffering?) but also the structures of the game world that made it possible to even create that situation.

As a player, it's about 50/50 character and story. I have a hard time separating the two, because when I design a character, I design the story tensions that they can't really avoid confronting. For example, in a 7th Sea game that I played in, I played a rather financially strapped and unsuccessful courtesan. I got really into the idea of playing a character who was the 'working stiff' of the courtesan world, but also into the arc that I foresaw for her. Whether it was going to be a spiral down into failure which would end with her having to take up another line of work, or the development of successes that would only highlight the character flaws that were causing her trouble, I knew enough about the story to be really excited. At the very least I knew that things couldn't reasonably stay the same.

This is occasionally not true, of course - for example, in my current Ars game, we're playing birth-to-death. I had no idea who the character was when I created her, or what the story would be about, as the first scenes we ran were when she was about four years old.

In neither case do I get excited about mechanics. The mechanics, in my mind, are there to help me do the interesting bits of the game - whether that's be deeply in character or resolve conflict in dramatic ways.

Is it most important before game? Durring game? After game?

During and after a game, story (or is it situation?) is most important. No matter how neat the character is, if they aren't getting to be doing interesting things in interesting, concrete situations then I'm not that into it. In fact, I most hate having a beloved, interesting character who's stuck in a boring story. Before the game, I tend to obsess a little more about character (at least when I'm a player) because that's the only thing that I can reasonably control or expect.

When you play do you want to be feeling it right now, or thinking through it right now so that you can get your emotional intensity later? Do you want to be doing, or thinking?

I want to be doing. The emotional intensity of play, for me, happens while I am actually playing. Thinking about it later is a very different pleasure - more of an, "Oh, cool, look what I did! Hey, I bet if we just pushed this a little further . . . " But during play I want to be reacting organically to the events of the plot as if our consensually imagined world were completely real.

As a GM, this reverses almost completely. I am a completely thinky GM; I'm always thinking ahead, planning, figuring out how to be HARDCORE! and watching player reactions. I can slip into the organic-reactivity mode for brief periods when I'm playing an NPC, but I always come back to think-think-think-plan mode quickly.

Do you get frustrated with meta game chatter? Short amounts of it? Long amounts of it? Would you be happy if 90% of game was IC, and only 10% talking about things meta-level? Would you be happy if 90% of game was OOC meta-level talk, and only 10% of it IC acting?

Some kinds of meta-game chatter refreshes and energizes me. Other kinds, I absolutely hate.

Like John, I hate irrelevant chatter (i.e. movie talk) and rules discussions during the game. I don't have much tolerance for stopping play to handle mechanics, either, even though I do it - in my mind, the ideal resolution system could be handled silently during play, without anyone even having to pause.

On the other hand, I love suggestions and commentary on the game itself, which I find very rich sources of inspiration and completely energizing. I also really like it when other group members bring up things that might be relevant, but that I maybe hadn't thought of. (For example, in our Rome game the players often remind me, "The last time I met this character, here's what happened," because we have a very large NPC cast.)

The best kind of meta-game chatter, though, is the oohs, aahs and applause - we're a very audience-y group. When someone does something cool, there'll be cheering, shouts of "HARDCORE!" and applause; during dramatic moments, people will sometimes shout suggestions for how to heighten the tension.

Do you strongly author your games, or do you like to have an organic game in which you react to the world? When/if you author, do you want to do it through your character or through meta-game controls? Both? Do you want to do it explicitly (I am going to do this) or implicity (oh wow, I just did that!)?

I both strongly author my games and have an organic game in which I react to the world. I do this by having the authoring take place through the character and what the character does in the world. (Or, if I'm the GM, I build in-game-world structures that will organically produce the kinds of conflicts I'm looking for.) This kind of authoring tends to be very implicit, even when it's planned. For example, in a medieval fantasy game where I played a female knight, I knew she was going to have big gender-identity issues. I never stopped during play and said, "How can I bring these up?" Instead, I put her into situations where it would be a conflict for her, and then noticed when the situation successfully gave her problems. I had her get involved in a tournament, for example, where the no-lady-love issue would definitely come up. Then I noticed that it wasn't just coming up, it was coming up in a really interesting way ("Oh, hey, she's totally feeling that she can't be a real knight now unless she has a ladylove, so I guess she'll go find one!") and I knew I wanted to follow that up. Now I had a new quietly implicit goal to push against.

I also use meta-game control systems, but almost exclusively between sessions rather than during play. I'll notice things like which antagonists are working and which aren't, for example. But I really hate to think about things this way during an actual session.

More in next post. :)

--Jess

KJ,

It's going to take me like a year and a half to respond to everything in those posts! Jebus! Rich stuff there. So for now I'm going to focus in on a few issues that jump out at me. These DO NOT have anything specific to do with the general beast of immersion, and have to do very specifically with the kind of cross-immerionist-nar play that I get often at my table. Since you seem so very compatible with my style, I must grill you. So, let us go: As a GM (is it possible to be an immersionist GM?), it's almost always situation (or possibly story - I'm still a little shaky on the distinction)
Three things here:

1. It is possible to be an immerisonist anything, I guess. Mo has started talking about things in terms of sockets -- the places where you plug into game to get the emotional validation/coolness that you want out of game. If you have a particularly deep connection with any socket it could lead to immersion (though mechanical immersion seems an odd one to me, but someone somewhere may do it). Under this model what many people call "immersion" would be "character socket immersion" -- or "character immersion."

I think it would be hard to be a GM and deep character immersionist (character submersionist? -- the state in which you are subsumed under your character?) because it requires a very dedicated focus. However, being a GM who immerses into story or situation should be possible. I know that when I get my deep flow on as a GM I can get to a point of involvement in the story in which the external world becomes vastly unimportant. (Ever been so into a movie or book that you forget the time and don't notice when the sun sets, phone rings, or something else? Yea, like that.)

2. When I say "situation" I mean the combination of character, world, and momentum that will cause the explosions. The story is the emergent thing which grows out of that in response to the choices, actions, and statements made by the PCs and the group as a whole as play goes on. I get excited about situation, but I only get deeply into story. (Situation is a thought process and construction to me, story is something that happens durring or because of game -- even when it isn't always clear what is happening at the moment.)

3. I think the split you talk about is pretty common among folks who share a lot of play techniques and foci with you. Mo, I think, does a very similar thing. I, otoh, approach playing much the same as GMing -- I just have a narrower focus.
This is occasionally not true, of course - for example, in my current Ars game, we're playing birth-to-death. I had no idea who the character was when I created her, or what the story would be about, as the first scenes we ran were when she was about four years old.
How did you find this affected your approach to the game, and the play of the game? I mean, did you use different techniques? Get a different emotional connection to the game? How did you author the game, the character? Did the same methods you use when you build story and character together work for you? Did you have to do different things?
In fact, I most hate having a beloved, interesting character who's stuck in a boring story.
This I find deeply interesting because I have repeatedly seen a few different responses like this. Mo's response is much like yours. Others (deep immersionists/submersionists) say that it doesn't matter what happens in the game, so long as they get to play their character. I, otoh, can't conceive of having a beloved or interesting character in a boring story. No interesting story = no interesting character. Characters aren't interesing when I make them, they only become so once I'm playing.

So, do your characters get interesting through play? More interesting through play? Or are they interesting when you create them?On the other hand, I love suggestions and commentary on the game itself, which I find very rich sources of inspiration and completely energizing. I also really like it when other group members bring up things that might be relevant, but that I maybe hadn't thought of.
So, when you break flow for something you don't like, does it take you out of the groove? What about breaking flow for things you do like? Or do you find that your "flow" isn't about "being in character"? What is it about? What helps it? What kills it? I also use meta-game control systems, but almost exclusively between sessions rather than during play. I'll notice things like which antagonists are working and which aren't, for example. But I really hate to think about things this way during an actual session.Do you ever feel limited by this? Have you in the past had to learn skills to help you get the things you want while using metagame issues only outside the main flow? Like, if your GM is heading someone one way, and you want it to go another, do you still deal with it IC, or do you go OOC at that? Or do you deal with that IC? Or other ways? Tell us your secrets!What I like best about playing a character is being able to think the way that character thinks, and to feel the way she feels. It's like slipping on a mask to look different, but this is a mask of the mind and a mask of the heart. Have you ever read Impro by Johnstone, or other works on theatrical training and mask play? Because, if'n you have, how do you find their theory connects or doesn't connect with how you play?

Also, as a personal interest issue, have you ever played a game with an actual mask to represent your character? Has anyone else?
Once a game ends, though, my attachment is pretty much over. I stay very attached to the character's story but I find that I almost always lose the ability to speak as the character once I'm not playing her regularly, and that's a sign for me of losing direct emotional attachment.
Very interesting. I know a lot of immersionists who say this -- character voice is very important to them, and after a game is over (or after long breaks) they can lose the ability to easily channel the character voice.

Does this only happen with you at the end of a story? Does it happen if you quit in the middle of a game and go a year without playing the character? I do generally have something specific that I want to explore - for example, for my Ars character it's pride and justice, and it's also my first experiment in playing a deeply religious Christian which has been really interesting and difficult for me.
So do you find that your ability to immerse in a character increases your ability to address theme/premise? Does it do so for you only, or for the whole group? That is to say, do you think the rest of the group gets a chance to see the rich interior world of your character? If so, what techniques do you use to get that across?

KJ:

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!

I especially love this:

"What I like best about playing a character is being able to think the way that character thinks, and to feel the way she feels. It's like slipping on a mask to look different, but this is a mask of the mind and a mask of the heart."

On character voice: Yes, it's the litmus test. I don't ever feel at home in the character, or fully socketed until the voice is on. Character creation is a process of getting enough to get the voice. Sometimes the conept is strong enough in a skeleton to do it, sometimes it takes more preparation. The character needs context for me to climb into.

Characters are interesting before play. They are full of potential and caught up excitement, but it's not nearly so interesting as once they get into play. After a preferred night of HARDCORE (which sounds just wrong, but it's the lingo!) , I'm distracty and preoccupied between a T and F the next day, and may well dream IC. It's like the the excitement of the possibility of character creation and the excitement of play are piled on top of each other, because I'm all reved up and can't wait to see what happens.

On (character) immersive GMing: I've actually just started to play with this idea. I'm running a solo game for Brand, and it's my first very happy GM experience. I'm starting to finally get comfortable there. So we're about 10 sessions in now, and all the NPC's have their hearts beating for me. I'm finding, as time goes on that it gets easier and easier to slip in and immerse in them, especially in critical or intense scenes. I think the reason I'm enjoying this GM experience is partially due to the fact that I can get my "F" on here and there despite the fact that GMing is a very "T" activity for me. Plus, Brand's character's story is just six ways of badness, so I am getting a vicarious F sympathizing with him while plotting against him. Funny that, I'm using my epicaric viragoness to learn to enjoy GMing. It's just not my character I'm beating up.

Brand:

Also, as a personal interest issue, have you ever played a game with an actual mask to represent your character? Has anyone else?

You bastard. Now my mind is playing with the concepts of making a set of masks for a small group to see how it would alter the shape of play and the socket to the game. (Point of reference for those not in the know: I'm a wet-mould leather maskmaker).

John:


(Incidentally, I've encountered a curious attitude from some people regarding authorship. Some people will say that if you declare something which your character would say, then you're not authoring. That seems very strange to me.)

I'm with you, dude. I keep getting whiffs of that too, and I think it's strange too. I author strongly via character, and those authorial decisions happen both in metatalk and in IC dialogue (etc.). Just because I have intentionally found a way to marry what my character would do (as far as character continuity and "desire" goes) with what I need my character to do for the story or the game, or whatever reason does not mean that it ceases to be an authorial action.

Daniel:

The 9 Worlds Skype recording is very, very similar to the way I most enjoy playing. It's not, however, wholly typical of the way I DO play. Regularly, I find myself being distracted by the immersion of either myself or others and missing out on some opportunities to engage in juicy conflicts. How's that for odd?

That is made of odd. It makes my mind go a little crosseyed, in fact. What about immersion stops you from gettting into juicy conflicts? And this is not facetious or judging, but an honest question: What is it that you like about playing in the manner you hear in the recording? What makes it a happy place for you? I want to understand because it so would not be a happy place for me.... I mean my flesh wouldn't brun off my bones or anything, but it would feel more like a boardgame to me than an RPG. I'd like to understand what makes you folks on "the other side" get your groove on.

Did you ever read Yud's dice back when he talked about all that MBTI stuff we were yammering about? I am willing to bet money that player who play in the manner of that Skype recording are **T* in the second profile - the one that represents a person's relationship to game.

Brand... I still think the MBTI is the key. We need to make that damn test!

Jesus creeping Christ on a pogo stick! Find something else to do for a day and Brand Robins TAKES OVER THE THREAD!

Also, as a personal interest issue, have you ever played a game with an actual mask to represent your character? Has anyone else?

Interesting. I haven't played with masks, but I do find that physical aspects play a role. There are some tshirts that I own that I just could not wear if I was going to play a certain character, because it was too incompatible with her style. Another player suggested we use the gym in her building before a game session, so we could chat and work out before playing, and I refused flat out even though fee gym access would be nice, because it would just not work for me to play the character in that game while feeling all sweaty. The other player said being all sweaty would help her get into the mindset of that character. (Her character was a tomboy, mine put great value on cleanliness.)

Personally, I'd find masks too physically distracting. The sensation of wearing a mask would take me away from the immersion in the character (unless the character was wearing a mask as well, and even then it would be odd). I'd see it from the corners of my eyes all the time and could never completely ignore it.

Plus, it would limit my ability to use and perceive facial expressions, and I love roleplay with lots of non-verbal communication between characters. I don't just want the people I play with to talk in character, I want in character facial expressions, postures and so on. Actually, getting back onto the immersion issue, I found it disruptive to my immersion to play with people who deeply sucked at conveying non-verbal stuff, or who were bad actors. i palyed once with a GM who came up with brilliant plots, but all his NPCs spoke in the same voice, same mannerisms (his), same tone, same style of speech. It was like nails on a chalkboard, because I was used to playing with a GM who's NPCs I could distinguish between simply by the way he sat in the chair or the angle of his head.

Again, rambling. Oh well.

Claire

Sorry Jeff!

Didn't mean to do it, it just kind of happened.

On the topic of the Skype Nine Worlds game...

Yes, it is VERY different from the way I usually play.

I think part of the reason it happens is the coarseness of the resolution system. One draw of the cards has an immense effect on the course of the "plot" of the "story" and as a result, the narration tends to be a summary rather than a played-out scene.

Other games have got a similar level of coarseness with regard to resolution, but you come to it in stages that can have bits of narration, dialogue, etc. attached to them. In this case I'm thinking of games like Heroquest and Dogs in the Vineyard. Those games, in my experience, support and reward in-character dialogue, back-and-forth narration, etc. whereas Nine Worlds gives you a big lump all at once.

Not that that's a BAD thing. That's what Matt was after. It's just different.

If I were running Nine Worlds, there are some things that I would do differently, both in terms of mechanics and procedure, to heighten the immersive quality of the game.

Sorry, it's been a busy few days (with no respite in sight), but I figured I would come back and respond to some more of this stuff.

Brand wanted to know about a game I'm running where I took the character birth-to-present-and-eventual-death:

How did you find this affected your approach to the game, and the play of the game? I mean, did you use different techniques? Get a different emotional connection to the game? How did you author the game, the character? Did the same methods you use when you build story and character together work for you? Did you have to do different things?

I guess there's a spectrum, for me, of authoring character and situation together to produce story. Sometimes I spend a lot of time on the situation, then create a character to fit. Sometimes I have a character concept and then have to worry about putting her in an interesting situation. This was just one extreme of the spectrum - that it was all situation, and I had to see how the character developed from who she was and what her life was like and what conflicts arose during her childhood. I did decide a few character things (proud to a fault, brilliant, imperious, impatient) within the first hour or so of play, but it really came out of responses to concrete situations like, at age five, trying to keep up with her beloved older sister.

There's always an interchange between story and character, and no matter how detailed my pre-authoring of a character is, she always changes when she's actually in play. So I think this was really just an extreme case of that - I just didn't start with any preconceptions, but went with responses to the situation that felt narratively right. We did entirely freeform until she hit about eight, then came up with a tenative stat breakdown based on the way we'd been playing her.

It's definitely affected the play of the game in that there's a powerful sense of history to the character that many other characters of mine don't have. I mean, I always know where my characters come from, but here I can refer to specific incidents that happened when she was five - and it's not as though I'm making up an incident to fit, but that this thing really happened ("really" happened) and is informing her current behavior. I have a very clear and profound sense of this woman's life arc, and although her story isn't simple, it's both complex and narratively satisfying. I definitely find myself thinking a lot more about how her history and her past have influenced her present choices, and discussing it OOC with my partner, than I do with other games where my characters tend to live somewhat more in the eternal now (or at least it's harder to imagine the ways in which they don't).

So, yeah - I'm not sure that I do anything different, but having the character evolve in play over such a long time, and having her entire life represented in the game, has definitely been profoundly different. I don't think it has affected the play as much as it has affected my internal decision-making and the kinds of OOC discussions I find myself having. I do understand the character really well, which is fun!

So, when you break flow for something you don't like, does it take you out of the groove? What about breaking flow for things you do like? Or do you find that your "flow" isn't about "being in character"? What is it about? What helps it? What kills it?

That's right - breaking flow for a discussion of game rules totally takes me out of the groove, and it takes me a few minutes to find it again. Breaking flow for things I like (applause, discussion of possible story directions) makes me grin and want to dive right back in. It's not quite about being in character - and maybe this is why I wouldn't call myself a character immersionist - as it is about the suspension of disbelief that the diegetic reality matters. Saying "Oh, wow, that thing that happened was so cool!" reinforces the idea that in our consensual imagined shared reality, that thing happened. Talking about the mechanics, and in particular arguing about them, just reminds me that what we're doing is not real. I'm capable of convincing myself, when I play, that we're telling stories that are in some way real (even if not literally so) and true (even if not literally so), and random OOC chatter and rules arguments and mechanics discussions kill that for me.

More in another post. And you other interesting people who have been posting, I have things to say to you as well! I just need more time in the day!!

--Jess

This is important.

kleenestar wrote:

That's right - breaking flow for a discussion of game rules totally takes me out of the groove, and it takes me a few minutes to find it again. Breaking flow for things I like (applause, discussion of possible story directions) makes me grin and want to dive right back in. It's not quite about being in character - and maybe this is why I wouldn't call myself a character immersionist - as it is about the suspension of disbelief that the diegetic reality matters. Saying "Oh, wow, that thing that happened was so cool!" reinforces the idea that in our consensual imagined shared reality, that thing happened. Talking about the mechanics, and in particular arguing about them, just reminds me that what we're doing is not real.

Designers, pay attention to that.

Good observation, KJ.

Perhaps I will commission such a mask from some wet-mold leather maskmaker that I know . . . :)

--Jess

I'm a roleplayer, not an immersionist, but I value immersion, for some definition of "immersion". I don't want the game getting in the way of my fun.

Rolling dice doesn't get in my way.

Counting successes, as per PtA or WoD, doesn't get in my way.

Cards work better than dice for me in PtA.

Comparing the various high dice, as per Sorcerer, gets in my way. It really, screamingly gets in my friend Beth's way, to the point where it's painful for her even watching other people playing through Sorcerer conflicts. She has a problem with DitV's mechanics, whereas I find they flow very nicely for me, at least as of our limited exposure to the system. She and Josh have no problem with Marvel Diceless' stone system, whereas I find it utterly counter-intuitive and anti-immersive.

Nobilis' jargon is anti-immersive. All those TLAs for the type of miracle point one is using just jars me out of the mood the game is trying to portray.

Arguing rules, definitely anti-immersive.

Trying to figure out stakes for too long, playing-without-roleplaying -- anti-immersive.

Un-fun play works against immersion as well. For my group, this includes arguing about a plan or knock-down, drag-out, suck-the-life-out-of-the-session bargaining scenes.

I wear glasses. I don't do contacts. Masks, sadly, don't work for me. Then again, I don't generally find them necessary.

-Lisa Padol