Immersion, Stance, and Playstyle Discussion

[mythusmage]

Get the feeling some people would do well in the broad jump? I must admit, some people are so adamant about their position, and nigh as adamant I'm as adamant about mine. Rel and Fu, posters assumptive.

Chaps, you don't know me. You have never met me or seen me play. You know me only from these forums and what I post here. Your impressions are based in incomplete information. Add to that an evident reluctance to tender this poster the benefit of the doubt.

You have given me the impression you are not comfortable with certain styles of play. I point out that certain styles of play are not that horrible, and you can get used to them. Nothing more. Nothing about being the 'one true way' or any of that fecal material. To put this as clearly as I possibly can, you are more adaptable than you know.

That's it. That's my message. I cannot, I will not force you into any course of action you are reluctant to follow. I can only encourage you to try the other road, I cannot make you take it.

I have my favorite style of play, and I reserve the right to promote it. I will not say it's the only way to play, only that it's something people might want to try if they are so inclined. If not so inclined that is their choice.

The most important thing where RPGs are concerned is that the players are engaged enough in the adventures they come back for the next session. That's what matters. Your game bores the players soon you will have no players. They keep coming back you must be doing something right.

Enjoy your games, however you play. And remember these words of wisdom from one Linus van Pelf, "Twenty years from now who's going to know?"

 

[the Jester]

I have my favorite style of play, and I reserve the right to promote it. I will not say it's the only way to play, only that it's something people might want to try if they are so inclined. If not so inclined that is their choice.

Cool. That, I think, is the sort of response people are usually hoping for when this issue comes up (as it does with different posters in different threads periodically, about 1/week).

That said, and more to the point of the thread, I usually take the 'actor' stance myself when playing, and more the 'director' stance as dm. If my character would do something I know is a bad idea, and it's in character- I'll do it. As a dm, it's simulatneously easier to do this (because I have so many characters, the entire world minus pcs!) and harder to do this (the sheer number of npcs means that I'll never be as intimitely aware of their motivations and the depths of their psyches as I am of one of my characters as a player).

 

[fusangite]

I must admit, some people are so adamant about their position, and nigh as adamant I'm as adamant about mine. Rel and Fu, posters assumptive.

You have given me the impression you are not comfortable with certain styles of play.

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that this is just a misunderstanding of my position. So, let me clear the above two points up:

Firstly, I am not adamant that most people would enjoy my main style of play. In fact, I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't enjoy playing games the way I do. It works for me and the people I game with, however. And in situations where it doesn't, I adopt a different play style. Actually, I have about three different play styles as a player; I decide which style to adopt based on what is going to be compatible with (not the same as) with the other players and GM. What I am adamant about is that different play styles are fun for different people in different group dynamics. So, perhaps some of this misunderstanding is that you been perceiving me as an advocate for a particular play style when this isn't really the case.

Secondly, at no point have I suggested that your style of immersion playing makes me uncomfortable. It's just not as fun as the other ways I play. None of my personal preference for different styles of play arises from a discomfort with your style. So no "safe environment," reassurance or coaxing is necessary. I played in the style you like from 1987-89; it was okay.

Back onto the topic, I have to say I am curious about people's view about how their style conceptualizes knowledge the character but not the player has. I addressed this issue at some length but I notice that because of how the question is framed, this issue isn't really foregrounded here.

 

[the Jester]

Back onto the topic, I have to say I am curious about people's view about how their style conceptualizes knowledge the character but not the player has. I addressed this issue at some length but I notice that because of how the question is framed, this issue isn't really foregrounded here.

I'm never afraid to ask the dm for info my pc would have that I as a player don't- "say, what are the wedding customs like in my home town?" Sometimes it's very difficult to deal with certain situations if you're missing the basic underlying assumptions behind them.

 

[mythusmage]

I agree, it never hurts to know how things are on the world you're adventuring in. If nothing else it opens up adventure possibilities.

Example: Your PC has a little sister. His little sister used to be a tomboy, and is now close to wedding a man she's never met. One of those arranged marriage things. She don't like it, and she's taken off. Your PC gets to go track her down and bring her back.

By including a family the GM has made it possible for the party to get involved in more difficulties than if they had no entanglements.

 

[barsoomcore]

I think fu's more talking about world knowledge than character plot hooks.

At least, that's what I find is one of my biggest challenges as a DM -- how to help my players understand the nature of the world they're living in, so that they can make decisions that are not at odds with the sorts of decisions the NPCs around them make.

If I were running a 1600's-era Japan game, I'd expect players playing samurai to make their character decisions based on some perspective of that culture. They would WANT to be in service to a lord, they would be loathe to take any action that might appear cowardly -- especially within the context of samurai culture. For example, if their lord were assassinated, their reaction ought to be more towards the "What a failure I am" than the "This is my chance to steal the family silver!"

It's not that I would want to control their reaction (either of the ones listed above are POSSIBLE), but I would want them to possess some understanding of the context in which their reaction ought to be determined.

And it's hard enough to communicate that to players about real-world cultures. Doing it with cultures that have never existed is -- well, actually it's probably EASIER, given that most people possess rather gross misunderstandings about cultures they've never lived in.

But it's not only the "actual" cultural context, because two games set in the same culture might embody very different worldviews. You can set a game in Tokugawa Japan and play The Seven Samurai with gritty battles, no magic, and plenty of death, or you can set a game in the same period and play Ninja Scroll with wild-flying action, crazy super-powers and nuttin but ninjas. Genre can be as important (if not more important) than culture in some games.

Now all that knowledge has to flow first of all from the DM to the player and from the player into the game. I find as a DM that acting isn't always (or ever) the best way to communicate my vision of the knowledge I want to pass on to my players. It can help at times (like playing a town mayor as a goofy buffoon if the game is meant to be lighthearted), but it's fraught with the potential for misinterpretation and resultant frustration as my expectation clash with my players'.

I find that as a DM I need to use a variety of tactics to let my players know what I'm on about this time. I try to design pre-campaign materials that embody the "feel" of the game and give players some useful cultural knowledge (usually in the form of websites where I can bring together a variety of media in a structured form). I try to design adventures that guide players in making choices that embody some philosophical aspects of the campaign (Barsoom, for example, has been setting the party up as major powers, putting them in the position that many of the BAD GUYS have been in, just to see what they'll do). I try to develop rules that likewise embody philosophical ideas (like sorcery on Barsoom, or Panache points in Gun-Fu), just to see what will happen.

As a player, I find I need to rely on DM cues a lot for what's appropriate or not. I'll ask outright questions like "Is this something that I would get angry about or would I be more afraid to react?" Or I'll try things out and if the DM suggests alternatives I'll see what I think. As far as world knowledge goes, I'll often just handwave it, saying "I say something appropriate," or "I say something outrageously false." Or I'll just make something up and let the DM decide if it's true or not. Sometimes that's more fun than anything.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I would go so far as to say that I'm not convinced that immersive play is necessarily a worthy goal for many players. I'm not suggesting that it's unhealthy or lame, merely that prevailing wisdom misleads many players who would have a more rewarding experience playing in a different mode into believing that only through immersion - pretending that they are their character - can they truly roleplay.

I said it before and here I am, saying it again.

Whether it's a question of comfort with speaking in-character, skill at doing so, desire to support fellow players' suspension of disbelief, or any other motivation is, frankly, irrelevant. I assert that there is a significant minority of players for whom nothing can be gained by attempting to play in an internally immersive actor-stance fashion - and, even more significantly, there are many games involving players which would not benefit one little bit from those players' trying to play in that mode, for one reason or another.

It has nothing to do with experience, comfort, skill, or willingness. There are just some people who would neither get anything nor give anything to their group by trying to "really get into character".

I'm not saying I'm one of those people, because it ain't so. I'm a fair enough actor qua acting, and I've used mannerisms, speech patterns, and accents in the past to flesh out a character. I certainly have no hesitation speaking in character. Yet I choose not to play in the actor stance most of the time, and I certainly never internally immerse myself in the character's thought processes and feelings. My reasons for not doing so are not because I don't get anything out of it - though it's actually true that I would get nothing out of internal immersion, for damn sure - but because I both have more fun and better contribute to the group experience when I play in a different mode entirely.

 

[mythusmage]

I think fu's more talking about world knowledge than character plot hooks.

Anything can be a plot hook.

 

[Afrodyte]

I find that as a DM I need to use a variety of tactics to let my players know what I'm on about this time. I try to design pre-campaign materials that embody the "feel" of the game and give players some useful cultural knowledge (usually in the form of websites where I can bring together a variety of media in a structured form). I try to design adventures that guide players in making choices that embody some philosophical aspects of the campaign (Barsoom, for example, has been setting the party up as major powers, putting them in the position that many of the BAD GUYS have been in, just to see what they'll do). I try to develop rules that likewise embody philosophical ideas (like sorcery on Barsoom, or Panache points in Gun-Fu), just to see what will happen.

Not to derail the thread, but this is very reminiscent of something I tried to post at the WotC boards, though far more concise. It was basically a different approach to presenting and designing settings, something a bit more abstract than the top-down or bottom-up approach. If you'd like to know more about it, I'd be glad to either start a new thread or email you what I had in mind.

 

[S'mon]

Thinking about what I do - I very rarely if ever consciously adopt a funny voice or particular mannerisms when playing a role. But I do "get into character" - seeing the world through the eyes of that character, as I understand it. As GM that may involve getting into lots of different characters in a session. As player it's just one. I guess as GM I do expect players to get into character like this, to see the world through the eyes of their PCs - which AFAIK is what Edwards calls Actor stance, as opposed to Author stance (which seems to be the Director stance discussed here) - in Author stance you are looking at things from 'outside'. That's the stance I have when GMing if I'm not roleplaying a particular NPC.
Are some players totally incapable of this? I'm not sure. Some players seem to be totally incapable of speaking in-character. I'm uncomfortable around these players and generally don't want them in my games, for me they detract from the experience.