I think what we're (you and I and perhaps
@Bedrockgames ) is what I was outlining earlier in the thread;
immersion isn't (and cannot be really) one thing with hard-coded parameters.
So another way to engage with what I wrote and what you replied to is this:
To some folks, "less is more" or "addition by subtraction, while to others "more is more" and "subtraction is just plain subtraction."
Stated that way, I absolutely understand and can agree. I think put too much emphasis on 'mostly' (or maybe 'might') in "setting might be mostly irrelevant" as opposed to considering the improved weight of details when they stand alone. Subtraction is absolutely valuable tool for creation. I also know that it can go too far for me.
I'll give a few personal examples here:
* If you increase the parameters of a social system or you increase the parameters of my mental processing (particularly certain parameters), I will tend toward becoming distracted such that the experiencing of the social system or performing the mental processing (and all that comes downstream of activating my central nervous system) will be diminished in multiple ways. My "presence" will be diminished. My perception and understanding will be diminished. My appreciation will be diminished. My performance will be diminished.
Once I have some very particular, focused parameters, everything else becomes "noise." I'm rather confident that my threshold for this is considerably less than your own.
I think that's a fair assumption. I tend that way with complex mechanical systems, things that ask me to be processing decisions constantly (this will come back up), but keeping contextual information at the ready is a much more background process, so it doesn't increase my cognitive load nearly as much. Reading, comprehending, storing, and recalling details has always been something I have seemingly had an easier time with than others. I've seen friends at the table with much more of your approach, so what you're saying here makes a lot of sense.
* Are you familiar with the opening scene of Super Eight and "the elevator scene" in Ghostbusters? These scenes are both incredibly short. 15-30 seconds. We are working from a huge information deficit in totality but an information-rich environment experientially due to how incredibly well-constructed these two short scenes are. It isn't just what is said and put before us...it is what is left unsaid...that invites us (demands us) to viscerally put the pieces together about the nature of what is before us (setting, situation, characters).
Simply put, by my reckoning of it, the more you add to those scenes ("tell rather than show"), the less impactful they become and the level of storycraft decreases (with the arrow pointing toward inelegant, clumsy ham-fistedness). Despite the unbelievably abbreviated nature of those scenes, "they are perfect" in terms of both information-richness, and intensity of connection.
I feel similarly about Cormac McCarthy's works. Minimalism (reduction of information in specific areas), when executed deftly, is always vastly preferable to me when I'm running a game, reading a novel, watching a move, physically grappling, climbing a wall, exercising/playing sport, or engaged in a social environment.
I'm assuming you might feel differently about any of the bullet points above, about Cormac McCarthy's works or about some or all of the endeavors I've listed directly above?
I've not seen Super Eight, but yes to Ghostbusters, and both read and watched No Country. Now, here, I'd say I'd actually place myself much closer to you! I love films that can imbue very small moments with great weight, and as you mention, showing rather than telling is a aphorism with a lot of truth to it. Artful direction that doesn't waste time on needless exposition or set-up and trusts the audience to be invested and active in the watching process is a treat.
However, I'd say that's true for me specifically in the context of movies (and as another example, video games), as opposed to ttrpgs, and if I had to answer why, I'd say there are two reasons for that. First, they are providing enough ambient sensory detail that I do feel weighted in the world. While I wouldn't characterize it as full aphantasia (as I've learned one of my players does have), visualizing things has always been a struggle for me. When I read, I rarely have a picture in my head of what any given character looks like unless it is plot relevant. So, for example, in a western, things like the remoteness of a town, how lively it is, how strangers are treated, are all baked in to a much greater degree. It's hard to not show that ancillarily in the process of detailing the important.
Second, and I think this carries more weight in regards to this discussion, when in the process of viewing and interpreting someone else's fiction, my job is to pay attention and interpret. I can devote my full mental energy towards understanding, and thinking about what necessarily must be true for the scene to exist, and what it implies about the situation, characters, and world. However, in the context of playing a game, and I'll state this intentionally hyperbolically, I am always worried about what choice I need to make next, and if it's the wrong one. This is a pattern throughout a lot of my life, and I'm not surprised to see it play out here. With this activity, my actions both determine the course of the game, and to some degree the engagement and fun of everyone else at the table (not even to mention my own). I'm juggling trying to be mechanically sound, narratively appropriate, tonally fitting, and do it with the speed the scene demands, while respecting the desires of the rest of the table, and worst of all, trying to come up with something interesting.
Now, I know, I don't
need to make the "right" choice. The game will carry on, there are other players who are also responsible for steering it, what different players want will occasionally be in conflict through no fault, sometimes the "wrong" choice can end up being more interesting, sometimes/in some games there's not really any such thing as a wrong choice, and the point here is to have fun more than it is being successful. But as much as I know that, and it's something I'm trying to work on in several arenas, something that actively helps me when confronted with this stress is the ability to think "Well, at least I have the relevant information to make it." In games, what that readily available relevant information is, to me, is the setting details. One less unknown factor to complicate the decision making process. Even better if it's the sort of thing I can gather on my own time, away from the table. Hence, my favor for setting books.
EDIT -
@pemerton answered your questions about DitV. Like the scenes in Super 8 and Ghostbusters above, DitV intentionally eschews focus on various things (any ephemera or color that isn't absolutely necessary to engage with the premise of the present situation) in order to demand that exact type (inherent to those two movie scenes depicted above) of focus by the participants on resolving the internal dynamics of character and situation.
That makes sense. I always want to engage with a game as it desires, so as to best showcase its strengths or unique qualities. DitV does sound like one I might struggle with a bit initially, but given its history and influence in the hobby, it's one that I want to give a fair and honest shot. I'm sincerely hoping that as I grow, both as roleplayer and more generally as a person, the concerns above are ones I'm able to move away from.
Thank you for the stimulating response!