As I have said elsewhere, should you state "X is not impeded by game Y", so long as X is defined in such a way that the statement is true, I won't argue with you. BUT, if the discussion is about why some people believe that X is impeded by game Y, then the way those people define X is, IMHO, the critical one, and the one that should be adopted (for purposes of discussion only).
Fine, but this works both ways. You can state any "X
is imeded by game Y" and it will be true for some definition of X, such that the statement is true. The key lies either in seeking some universal (or, at least, generally accepted) definition of X or defining what X means for you when you make such statements, surely?
I'm wondering if you believe that roleplaying can occur without any immersion? And, if so, what does "role-playing" mean in that context?
Yes, I believe that roleplaying can occur without immersion - perhaps it's time I defined what I see "roleplaying" as. This is likely to be long - sorry...
Let me divide the word into two parts - "role" and "playing". Taking the first, "role" refers to taking the part of an entity or entities in an imagined game world. The entity/ies should have at least some degree of sapience and at least the appearance of free will. The range is really broad, here, in that the only sapient, free-willed entity whose part I could not take in roleplaying is myself, in the real world (because in any other world it wouldn't be 'me').
The second part is almost as broad, but requires more explanation. "Playing" I see as referring to a spectrum; at one end is the total, immersive identification of the "Turku style" roleplaying; at the other is the type of identification that might come while playing a game like Squad Leader or even, at a stretch, Monopoly. The base requirements are (1) that the actions taken by the entity/ies whose role I am playing takes place in a world I can imagine as having independent existence (even though, clearly, it does not - hence it is a "fiction"), (2) that I identify with the entity/ies I am playing the role(s) of, at least to the extent of thinking of them as "my guy(s)", and (3) that I 'play' them in the sense that I select their goals and intentions. I have used conditional plurals, here, but I will, in general, only be identifying with and 'playing' one individual entity at any one time - although there may be exceptions (mob psychology, groupthink and such like - even hive mentalities, possibly). This plural identification is most relevant when I GM, rather than when I am a player.
The identification aspect is perhaps more clearly explained by analogy to movies, television and books. Most movies and television are not filmed in "first person"/"through the eyes of the protagonist" mode - and yet I, at least, can still identify with the movie characters. Likewise, most fiction in books is not written in the first person - and yet I can identify with the protagonist in many novels without problems. In the same way, I can picture a roleplaying world in my mind from a third-person view and have no problem identifying with a particular character in that tableau. Add to that that I decide what they wish to do, at least in their conscious mind, and you have what I call "roleplaying".
The "playing" part of "roleplaying" thus runs the gamut from "play" in the sense of "take on the persona of, as if it were a mask over my own personality", to "play" as an actor (non-method actor type) might portray a part, to "play" in the sense of a puppetmaster "playing" the strings of a marionette, to "play" in the sense that a director directs the actions of actors on a set, to "play" in the sense of using the entity I am portraying as a (mutated) proxy for myself in a competition.
In all of the described scenarios I am "playing a role", rather than acting directly as myself. All of them require some exploration of an "imaginary space" and taking part in the definition of that imaginary space (by, at a minimum, describing the goals and intentions of the entity/ies I am playing the role of). Pretty much all else - the nature of the entity/ies I am portraying, the rules of the imaginary surroundings, the social mechanisms for communicating about the imagined space and the focus or aim of the roleplaying activity, to mention just a few elements - is almost infinitely malleable. To me, in fact, that is a major - perhaps the ultimate - attraction of roleplaying as an activity. There are almost no limits - anything I can imagine, I can roleplay.
Hence, for me, 'immersion' is required for a subset of roleplaying, and is not a superset.
1) I'm not sure that's a good thing or a bad thing. It does exist, though.
Sure - I said it was a "complication". That's not necessarily bad, but it might need some thinking about and planning for.
2) The kind of system I enjoy makes the imagined or fictional details of your character and/or setting an important element in the game's mechanics.
The more I think about this I think it boils down to "at what level?" I think
pemerton makes some good points, here - the difference between wanting to know that a character tries to physically harm another creature and wanting to know the angle of the sword cut they make, the bodily manoeuvre used and the justification of any and all subsequent effects is one of
degree, not fundamental
quality. Is it sufficient to know simply that the character is good at this stuff and, depending to some extent on chance, may get certain results from doing it - or do we need to know how and why they achieve these results in detail? And, if the latter, what specific detail, exactly? In the former, aspects of the setting - that this sort of result is possible, that the situation is suitable to achieve such a result and that this character is good at getting these results, for example -
are important. The only difference, perhaps, is that it is the player's decisions of character intent, rather than their justification of their desired result, that has effect.
I don't ascribe judgement to the fiction or assume anything is obvious; I give one player (the DM) the authority to make judgement calls based on his aesthetic preferences and the responsibility to maintain the consistency of the game's imagined setting.
That is a perfectly valid way to play. It's one I am tired of, personally, and maybe a little disillusioned with, but for those that find it satisfying I wish them well with it. But other ways to play also exist.
When I say "aesthetic preferences", what I mean is that one DM might have a view of combat that is more in line with what is seen on TV and base judgements to keep with that view, and another with more knowledge about combat in the real world might have a more realistic vision for combat in the setting and want to make judgement calls that reinforce that view.
Quite so. It's these sorts of "world attributes" that I think are very much better communicated clearly up-front. The game rules are a generally pretty effective way to communicate them - but other communication methods clearly exist!
I'm not sure what you mean by "both".
Heh - good point! I should have said "all of them", maybe...
Basically, I enjoy both games where the action is described in a very general, abstract way (with the in-game outcome described in an arbitrary manner post-facto) and games where the action is detailed down to the intended sword cut angle (Riddle of Steel, anyone?) before the outcome is determined.
I also enjoy both games where the rules define the world-setting "physics" for both the GM and the players, with GM discretion dialled to a minimum and tactical competition to the fore, and games of collaborative world-building, where the world "physics" is defined by mutually agreed aesthetics, subject only to consistency with what has been settled upon before, during play.
