[Theory?] Need some quick answers about GNS and Immersionism

[poacher]

...which should stand for Immersionism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.

First of all, let me state that I'm afraid of the Forge, which is why I'm posting this here, without fear of being accused as a Sim-lover (which I am). Also, discussing [theory] seems to draw the worst of people, and in this I'd really like to see people's opinions without long posts or rants. Thanks!

I've been told that Immersionism is a facet of Simulationism, but from my meager experience with PTA, I've also come to believe that Immersionism can be a facet of Narrativism. Is this true?

What is Immersionism? For me, it's the ability to keep on character, and to make the other people believe at your table that you are that character, or at the very least to build a confidence in them where they can safely say if you are in character or not. Discuss, if you will, but keep it short, simple and civil. And please, no rants about "good-roleplying".

What is Simulationism? For me, it's the ability to conform to the theme of the game. Playing Supers in M&M, for example, and sticking to the rules in it about the game world. Again, discuss if you will but please keep it simple and civil.

And, finally, what is Narrativism? For me, it's the ability to take control of the game flow. I've seen too many theories about issues/flags and what-not, but I think it can really be simpler than that.

All of the above has little to do with the current GNS theories, as you see, and are my simple explanations to someone who wanted simple answers. All of them also take into account that you can resolve your issues/flags without playing exclusively Narrativism, if only the player takes the effort and the GM lets him. I think that Immersionism can take care of that pretty well.

So, am I butt-faced wrong about all this? Am I mixing it all up and coming with less than nothing?

PS: I've left Gaming out, as I tend to associate it with D&D, and my dislike for that game doesn't let me appreciate the potencial of Gaming. If anyone wants to prove me that Gamist can be fun without D&D or the "in Gaming you have to win to have fun" which seems to be the particular description of the CA, then please go ahead.

[Thanuir]

Originally Posted by poacher

So, am I butt-faced wrong about all this? Am I mixing it all up and coming with less than nothing?

Your definitions are very much not the ones used over the Forge. If you want to be corrected, say so.

That said, immersion is a technique, not a creative agenda (which GNS are). It works independently of the.

I would link you to Vincent Baker's blog entry on immersion, but it does not seem to be working right now. So here's a (long) quote instead.

Originally Posted by lumpley

Immersion
You know that thing where you're so into your character that you adopt her emotions, mannerisms, outlook, mood, heart and soul? It's a rush? You aren't thinking about your character, you just do what she'd do without thinking? It gives you deep insights into your character that turn out, on reflection, to be deep insights into yourself, your friends, and the world? It feels totally alien and natural at once? You crave it? That's what I mean by immersion. I assume that's what everybody means by it.

This is more a rant than an essay. Perhaps you will accuse me of geek hate!

1) Way back in the dim history of the endeavor, someone noticed that one of the qualities of immersion is that you don't really think about anything else. Being an emotionally stunted moron, or perhaps just not thinking about it very hard, this person concluded that immersion happens because you don't think about anything else.

Why his friends didn't step in and say "uh no that's stupid" I don't know. Why his fellows didn't laugh him out of the endeavor I also don't know. But now look what we've got!

(Okay, probably it wasn't just one person and his negligent friends and fellows. Probably it was a whole series of small stupidities perpetrated by otherwise smart, reasonable people. Whatever.)

2) Now what we've got is a lame fixation on bogeymen. It's taken as given that a whole raft of entirely positive things will prevent immersion. Things like: game rules where you make decisions as a player, not as your character. Having input into the game's fiction outside of your character's actions and immediate reach. Acting on your shared ownership of your fellow players' characters and allowing them to act on their shared ownership of yours. Thinking about your character's past and future decisions from your own point of view too, not exclusively your character's. Having goals and plans for the game outside of your character's goals and plans. Playing more than one character!

"Will prevent immersion." What nonsense.

I grant that you don't do those things during immersion, at its most intense. But saying that those things prevent immersion is like saying that the commercials prevent your favorite TV show.

3) I dismiss out of hand anyone who says "I once played a game where we admitted our shared ownership of our characters [or pick one], and I didn't immerse at all, therefore..." Okay, you didn't. Drawing conclusions from that is like "I once played Shadowrun, and it sucked, therefore dice pools are anti-fun." Might it, just possibly, have been something else that prevented your immersion? Something maybe coincidental to admitting your shared ownership? Or possibly some combination of admitting your shared ownership plus something else not on the list?

I dismiss, like I say, out of hand. I trust you to think harder than that.

4) Some of you think that I'm saying or about to say something like this: "our intent focus on immersion has blinded us to other, just as fun ways to play." And you're already responding: "maybe so, Vincent, but immersion is my favorite, and those other ways to play may be just as much fun but I don't like them as much." Wrong!

See, that buys into the stupidbad false dichotomy. Let it go. What I'm really saying and about to say is this:

Our shared misunderstanding of what makes immersion happen has parched our experience. WE CAN HAVE IT ALL. Our big monkey brains are fully capable of having immersion and those other kinds of fun all at the same time.

So time to choose. Here are your choices.

Door 1: You immerse. When you immerse, immersion's the only kind of fun you have. When you don't immerse, it's not fun at all.

Door 2: You immerse. When you immerse, you have immersion plus other kinds of fun. When you don't immerse, it's fun anyway.

I don't know about you, but duh.

5) Okay, what's really behind Door number two?

I propose that Immersion happens when three things coincide. Unlike points 1-4, this is not rant, it's an honest proposal. Banish stupid conventional wisdom, reflect on your experiences, evaluate critically, and then yes! Argue, construct, disclaim, make counter-proposals of your own. This is the conversation.

The three things are the affirmed rightness of your vision, permission to act with passion, and faith in the robustness of the game's fiction. ("Time" is not one of the three, although they all take non-zero time to develop.)

The affirmed rightness of your vision
This is social. Your fellow players share ownership of your character, remember; you want and need for them to affirm that your vision of your character is right. They trust you with your character. They won't step in and contradict, override, undercut.

Permission to act with passion
Furthermore, whatever you have your character do, they won't react defensively. If your character threatens something they value, they'll deal with the threat passionately in response, but without ever carrying the struggle up into the social level.

You aren't constrained by the fear that having your character act might step on someone else's toes.

Faith in the robustness of the game's fiction
And you have to trust that the game has room for your character in it. You can't be worrying whether this decision that your character's making might break the game. You have to know, securely enough that it's unconscious, that even if your character transforms the game entirely, the game'll survive.

There. The affirmed rightness of your vision, permission to act with passion, and faith in the robustness of the game's fiction.

6) Personal to J: You and Vicky Vance make enormous sense to me in this light. Far more sense to me than "PTA forces distance between you and your character." What do you think?

Personal to Meg and Emily: in our Ars Magica game, sometimes I'm a particular character, of course. But most of the rest of the time I'm like half-immersed in Acanthus, Severin, and maybe Dezjo or Manuela or whoever else needs to be at hand. I'm thinking as myself, but with my characters right there, jostling and ready to jump up if anything catches their attention. So that's wicked fun. How about you?

Personal to me: in Moose in the City, when Ron passed me that note, my heart just filled with my character. It was the opposite of an undercut; it said that Ron saw my character clearly and was committed to me fulfilling his potential. It was a powerful affirmation.

So sharing ownership can absolutely foster immersion.

7) Immersion and RPG design. Look back now to the list of bogeymen. See how any of them might screw up immersion, by screwing up one of the three thingies, but needn't?

How about a famously non-immersive game: Universalis. Is it because Universalis has such metagamey rules? Because you have to pay attention to things other than your one character? I propose that it is not. I propose that it's because your vision of any given character is always at least a little bit contentious. Your fellow players rarely positively affirm the rightness of your vision, and never formally; the best affirmation you can usually hope for is for nobody to sling coins at you to challenge it. Consequently you don't bond with any of the characters in that immersive way.

So could you design an RPG specifically to foster immersion, but still a solid, well-designed no-myth formalist game? I bet you could. I bet you could and it would work a charm.

The most hardcore immersionists don't agree, at least.

[droog]

Immersion
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 Why immersion is a tar baby and Immersive Story by John Kim.

From the Forge Provisional Glossary

If you define the terms, I don't see how you can be wrong.

[Lord Minx]

Originally Posted by Thanuir

So here's a (long) quote instead.
[snip]

Stuff like that's the reason Lumpley is one of my favorite Forgite.

M

[lumpley]

I have, um, a friendlier answer than the rant on my blog. It's shorter too.

Immersion is, in Big Model terms, a body of techniques. You can use those techniques in pursuit of any of the three creative agendas - that's gamism, narrativism, simulationism - provided that you structure the game appropriately otherwise.

For purposes of example, let's say that you're playing narrativist if and only if you're playing a loyal person whose loyalty is tested.

Can you immersively play this loyal person whose loyalty is tested? Absolutely, and if you do, you've used the techniques of immersion to play narrativist.

For purposes of example, let's say that you're playing simulationist if and only if you're playing a loyal person whose loyalty is celebrated (without ever being put to any real test).

Can you immersively play this loyal person whose loyalty is celebrated? Absolutely, and if you do, you've used the techniques of immersion to play simulationist.

Make sense? Whether immersive play is narrativist or simulationist (or gamist) depends on other things than the immersion itself.

-Vincent

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Lord Minx

Stuff like that's the reason Lumpley is one of my favorite Forgite.

M

And stuff like that is why I despise the forge. The gist of that quote is this: "Because I don't think such-and-such a problem exists, that means that everyone else who thinks it does is clearly an idiot." This is NOT an attitude that is condusive to the kinds of theory discussion that their site is alleged to be good at. For me, narrativist play does get in the way of immersionist play. If the rules are narrativist and the game is immersionist, then I have to keep toggling back and forth between the two modes of thought, and that is not pleasant. Just because Lumpley doesn't agree doesn't make me a moron.

[Thanuir]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

And stuff like that is why I despise the forge.

I quoted from Lumpley's own site (to be more exact, from here), not from the Forge.

For me, narrativist play does get in the way of immersionist play.

So, you can never say stuff like "Even if my family gets killed, I will defeat [enter archnemesis here]."? Or make other personal choices in character?

[John Morrow]

Originally Posted by Thanuir

So, you can never say stuff like "Even if my family gets killed, I will defeat [enter archnemesis here]."? Or make other personal choices in character?

Have you ever seen the movie The Truman Show? In that movie, the character Truman's life is one big television show created to revolve around him, where the producers control the situations around him to keep the show interesting. At some point, he starts to suspect that the setting isn't real but, instead, reacts to him and is crafted to engage his "Kickers". And once he has that suspicion, he tests his suspicion and it's easily confirmed.

That's very similar to the experience I get thinking in character whenever things are manipulated to produce events and results that are "interesting" or "dramatic" or "challenging" rather than events and results that simply flow naturally from what's happening in the setting. Real life doesn't constantly throw Bangs at my Kickers. In real life, sometimes things go exactly as planned, bombs are defused with minutes to spare, combat encounters are unfairly one-side, and so on. It's not always interesting or exciting but it's how things go. When that's not how the game reality works, it can feel very artificial and forced to me.

Please note that I don't have to notice this consciously as the player. I wind up noticing it subconsciously as the character, as I try to fit what happens to my character into a coherent worldview. When my character's life is one bang after another, for example, my character wonders why life is abusing him so. When my character's plans always fail to make them more interesting, my character wonders why they bother planning since it never helps. When my character notices that they never die no matter how reckless their behavior, they start to wonder how invincible they are. And so on.

There are other problems as well. If a mechanic asks me to make a decision as an omniscient author rather than from within my character's perspective, there is no way to make that decision in character. If the GM asks me, "So, how many ninjas attack you in the alley?" that would give me authorial control over the situation but there is no way to answer that question in character, thus I have to leave immersion to do it. The only way I can answer that question in character is to say, "How should I know? I didn't put them there!"

I purchased Dogs in the Vineyard and don't have any idea how I could possibly play it while thinking in character. Why? Because it resolves arguments and other complex situations with mechanics that permit or constrain what the character can do, which means that those decisions which flow naturally from a character's thought processes are governed by external mechanics. Rather than, "What does your character do?", it's more of a process of, "Your character does something along these lines. Explain it." Since I haven't actually played Dogs, I may be explaining it wrong or not understand it or not understand it correctly. If so, please feel free to tell me where I'm going wrong and explain how those mechanics can be used while thinking in character.

[poacher]

[QUOTE=Thanuir]If you want to be corrected, say so.[QUOTE]

Please, go ahead, but keep it short; a reason I don't go to Forge is that people tend to overcomplicate things, and these seem simple enough.

[-E.]

Originally Posted by poacher

...which should stand for Immersionism, Simulationism, and Narrativism.

First of all, let me state that I'm afraid of the Forge, which is why I'm posting this here, without fear of being accused as a Sim-lover (which I am). Also, discussing [theory] seems to draw the worst of people, and in this I'd really like to see people's opinions without long posts or rants. Thanks!

I've been told that Immersionism is a facet of Simulationism, but from my meager experience with PTA, I've also come to believe that Immersionism can be a facet of Narrativism. Is this true?

What is Immersionism? For me, it's the ability to keep on character, and to make the other people believe at your table that you are that character, or at the very least to build a confidence in them where they can safely say if you are in character or not. Discuss, if you will, but keep it short, simple and civil. And please, no rants about "good-roleplying".

What is Simulationism? For me, it's the ability to conform to the theme of the game. Playing Supers in M&M, for example, and sticking to the rules in it about the game world. Again, discuss if you will but please keep it simple and civil.

And, finally, what is Narrativism? For me, it's the ability to take control of the game flow. I've seen too many theories about issues/flags and what-not, but I think it can really be simpler than that.

All of the above has little to do with the current GNS theories, as you see, and are my simple explanations to someone who wanted simple answers. All of them also take into account that you can resolve your issues/flags without playing exclusively Narrativism, if only the player takes the effort and the GM lets him. I think that Immersionism can take care of that pretty well.

So, am I butt-faced wrong about all this? Am I mixing it all up and coming with less than nothing?

PS: I've left Gaming out, as I tend to associate it with D&D, and my dislike for that game doesn't let me appreciate the potencial of Gaming. If anyone wants to prove me that Gamist can be fun without D&D or the "in Gaming you have to win to have fun" which seems to be the particular description of the CA, then please go ahead.

Your understanding is reasonably good -- but don't let anyone tell you The Forge is very clear or consistent about their definitions.

You're reasonably *correct* in your defintions, but not complete.

Simulationism is one of the most poorly defined concepts in GNS (it underwent a re-definition right before The Forge shut down the theory forums) so in terms of "official definition" it's in limbo (various people have their own, non-canonical ideas... you can choose to agree with them or not, but don't let anyone tell you their own ideas are in any way authorative).

Traditional Simulationism was the agenda that prioritized exploration of some element of games -- sort of "what it's like to be a Vampire" in World of Darkness, or "What it would be like to live in D&D-Land" or whatever.

According to this, the player was more interested in exploring the world (and in the world's internal consistency -- "internal cause is King" from the outmoded, and obsolete essay) or the character or the situation or whatever.

A Sim-prioritizing player might be more interested in fidelty than other considerations (say overcoming challenge or the creation of a story). Your description of M&M play is pretty straight-up traditional Sim play as described in the Right to Dream essay.

Nar play *is* about freedom to act meaningfully -- specifically, freedom to address premise, but it requires that the game have a premise (defined as any kind of human-interest / human-condition content). Being free to do whatever you want in a game with no identifiable story probably wouldn't be Nar.

So you're reasonably on-target with your defintions (again, for traditional Sim)

So where does Immersion fit into GNS? the short answer is that the answer you proposed and the one Lumply gave you is correct; in GNS-terms, immersion is a technique and is CA-independent.

A more nuanced answer would be that immersionism, as Lumply expresses in the first quote, is problematic for GNS theory. Check out the rant quoted in this thread.

Why is immersion such a hot button for GNS? Why the passion and the invective?

GNS isn't about analyzing game play or game design -- it's about advocating non-traditonal models and games (a lot of the folks who are really into GNS blame their awesomely bad experiences on traditional gaming concepts like the GM and the 'how-to-roleplay' text in the front of D&D and whatever).

GNS proposes that (simplified here)

1) Traditional games are terribly broken and lead to trauma and heart-ache
2) The cure is indie games that are so focused you'll never get different goals at the same table
3) For people who want their games to play like a story, Nar games where everyone's got a little DM in them and the rules explicitly prevent railroading

So far, fine -- but those indie games don't provide a key experience that a lot of gamers want: suspension of disbelief (called immersion for historical reasons)

All roleplaying is part story-telling and part story-listening.

In the traditional game, the GM has most of the story-telling responsibility and the players are largely free to listen and get into the story the way you'd get into a really good book or movie (this 'getting into it' is what immersion fundamentally is).

In a lot of indie games, the distribution of story-telling chores means that you get an experience more like telling a story than being told one.

And that's not what a lot of people want.

So when someone says, "You should play my game -- it's got this radical new design with GM-less-play! Power to the People, man! The Revolution is HERE!"

And the other guy responds, "Gosh... that kind of mechanic blows my sense of immersion."

The response is: "You're stupid -- I thought better of you than that. I don't know why your friends didn't tell you you're stupid. What's really going on here is you haven't thought deeply enough about this! Lemmings! The lot of you!"

Fundamentally, if you enjoy traditional roleplaying and find value in games/systems like Exalted, D20, GURPS, Hero, BRP, etc. and like the standard role of the GM, GNS isn't going to have much of value to say to you.

If you like experiencing immersion or suspension of disbelief during RPG games and don't find the experience of GMing the same as playing (I enjoy both but find the experiences profoundly different), then GNS dialog is likely to say some pretty irritating things to you...

I recommend that if you're going to talk immersion with GNS guys, you start by saying how much you like their games -- it might make for less ranty invective.

Cheers,
-E.