That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[pemerton]

I also continue to sense a strong sentiment, both here and in the "GM's Notes" thread, that proponents of "living world" play believe their agenda/playstyle is superior to achieve immersion. But I've still yet to hear a convincing argument how and why this is the case. What is so germane and important about the "living world" playstyle to achieve immersion?

I know you've had a response to this from @Emerikol.

From my point of view I wouldn't expect an argument, because the appeal seems to be entirely to experience. And many of those proponents are quite hostile to the sort of analysis that might support a more abstract argument.

For my part, as I've explained already in my post just upthread of this one, I don't find GM narration of everything my PC should already know given his/her connection to and enmeshment within the gameworld very conducive to immersion. That is one reason I find BW's Wises and Circles mechanics appealing; though I can also see the appeal of the PbtA technique of asking questions and building on the answers which lives in much the same functional space though without the same sort of connection to the action resolution mechanics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Good point! From what I remember of the 2002-4 era, we were playing D&D 3e but some players and DMs tried to bring GNS Narrativism into the game as a kind of Real Roleplaying ideal, which didn't work too well. I remember a GM who got sufficiently frustrated that she switched her D&D campaign to Heroquest (the Glorantha game not the boardgame), which then removed the tactical combat aspect most players enjoyed.

I think 4e D&D also ended up a bit of a mess as it tried to mix half-understood Forge theory into the game; ending up a lot more 'incoherent' than most prior iterations (2e AD&D excepted).

The thing about this is that in my experience the absolute worst part of Forge theory is its claim that purity is a good thing and incoherence a bad thing. There are about half a dozen people at any given table and they will all be looking at the very least for slightly different things. Purifying is an excellent design challenge to show you can but a good RPG will try to support people in a range of styles.

 

[Campbell]

The thing about this is that in my experience the absolute worst part of Forge theory is its claim that purity is a good thing and incoherence a bad thing. There are about half a dozen people at any given table and they will all be looking at the very least for slightly different things. Purifying is an excellent design challenge to show you can but a good RPG will try to support people in a range of styles.

I fundamentally disagree. That's just a dodge away from game design. The best thing about The Forge was the idea that we should have a shared purpose (creative agenda). That we should lean into whatever game we are playing rather than all trying to get our wildly different personal kinks satisfied. Enshrining the three particular creative agendas like did was thoroughly bad idea, but still an improvement over what we had before. 3 ways to play is better than 1 way to play. More ways to play is better still.

When I sit down to play or run a game I want to just focus on the game in front of me. I just want to play. I don't want to worry about working someone's particular kinks in. I just want to bring it. I'm also not bringing a particular energy other than what the game is about. I like that there are OSR games, Story Now games, games like Apocalypse World and Blades that have an agenda that does not fit as cleanly, etc. I like that I can select for particular play experiences. I like a lot of different sorts of games. Just not at the same time.

My personal experience of the before times was filled with a lot of disappointing play that comes from people not being on the same page. A lot of having to interrogate new players or groups to see if we might be a good fit. So much more work to get games off the ground. If I had to go back to that I probably would leave the hobby.

 

[Campbell]

Trying to force a game or style of play on any preexisting group when it's clear the people you are playing with have no interest is really bad form. I'm sorry that happened to you @S'mon.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If (i) my thought as a player is supposed to be aligned with that of my character, and (ii) I don't know anything about the world I'm in and need to be told by someone else (ie the Gm), then (iii) it must follow that I'm a stranger to the world.

A suggested plot in Jonathan Tweet's rpg Over the Edge (1992) has the PCs gradually realising they are characters in a roleplaying game via this method (among others).

Someone confronts the PCs and says they are not real people. To prove it, she throws rapid-fire questions at them, such as “Where were you born?,” “How many siblings do you have?,” “What’s your mother’s maiden name?,” etc. The point is that normal people should be able to answer these questions immediately, while the players may well have to pause while they invent the background. Also, search for inconsistencies in the backgrounds the PCs have developed. In the role-playing universe, once the player has imagined something, it comes into existence, so once the PC says, “I have two brothers and a sister,” it is so and has been so in the past. But if pressed, a PC may well create inconsistencies. The GMC uses this interrogation session as proof that the PCs are not real people, or at least not normal ones.​

Ultimately the PCs meet their players.

Now that the PCs know who they are, have them meet their makers. A door opens (or whatever), and in step several people (describe the role-playing group exactly as they are). Each walks to his individual PC and says, “I am your creator. Now you have an opportunity to ask me anything you want” (or something like that). Encourage the players to have their PCs confront their makers, demanding to know why they were put through such struggles, why they were made defectively, etc. Have each player talk out the conversation between himself and the PC with the other players looking on. Played properly, this could be extremely dramatic.​

 

[pemerton]

A suggested plot in Jonathan Tweet's rpg Over the Edge (1992) has the PCs gradually realising they are characters in a roleplaying game via this method (among others).

I've read this scenario but never tried to run it. Have you? Or do you know if anyone has?

I know it could just be a rhetorical device, but there's actually quite a bit of lead-up to the bit you describe (like discovering the Coke can - I think that's from the same scenario).

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've read this scenario but never tried to run it. Have you? Or do you know if anyone has?

No to both. To my knowledge no one in my gaming circle in Glasgow has ever done anything that broke the fourth wall in this way. I used to be into doing it in kind of a minor way with my PCs in the 90s and early noughties -- there was a lot of that kind of thing around at the time, like John Byrne's run on She-Hulk where she knows she's a comic book character. But I remember having quite a negative reaction to the Over the Edge version when I first read it, though I really liked most of the other ideas in the book. I just felt it wouldn't work, I think.

EDIT: It's interesting as an idea because it gets at the heart of a truth about roleplaying games, but there's no point in actually playing it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So some of the recent posts make me think of the comic “Die” by Kieron Gillen and Stefanie Hans, which also has a beta RPG. In the RPG, players create a fictional RPG character in the world of Die, and also create the player playing that character.

So there are two layers of fiction in the game, and it kind of allows for some real meta type commentary about why people RPG.

I haven’t yet had a chance to play the RPG, but I hope to at some point. I recommend the comic to anyone interested in RPG theory and history, and just fantasy in general. It’s brilliant.

 

[Emerikol]

If (i) my thought as a player is supposed to be aligned with that of my character, and (ii) I don't know anything about the world I'm in and need to be told by someone else (ie the Gm), then (iii) it must follow that I'm a stranger to the world.

Gygax in his DMG says that the GM should tell the players they don't know anything about the gameworld. This is primarily a play device - the players have to learn the setting as part of the skill of play. But it's not actually consistent with immersing in a character who is an entrenched part of the gameworld.

Given that I prefer to play characters who are entrenched in the gameworld rather than strangers to it, I also prefer to approach the gameworld in ways that don't require dependence on GM narration.

This is why I have a long session 0 with players to establish their identity in the world. I admit I don't tend to have PCs play where they grew up mainly because it gives them a massive advantage over the other PCs unless they all grew up there together. I tend to give out information sufficient to what a PC would know in the world. That though is not in game session development. That is out of game session.


@Doug McCrae and @hawkeyefan
I think those questions would be a great starting point for session 0. I tend to let my players have a good bit of creativity on their background. Once they decide on the details, I try to mesh it into the world so that they have actual names of countries, towns, etc... where everything they describe happened. Organizations that helped or wronged them can be associated with existing organizations in the world. It's like they do a black and white sketch which is the true picture and then the DM just adds color.

A checklist of questions though would be a good idea. I tend to ask about family. A lot of my players tend to desire to be loners though in many cases.

 

[dragoner]

Norton's Quag Keep had the players of a D&D game sort of breaking the 4th wall with their characters, iirc.

Forge stuff is funny, we were alternating between Rifts and Call of Cthulhu when I first read it. I do tend to agree that having a system made for the setting is good, then again the setting is important. Now people are advertising playing Traveller with Pbta, the more things change, the more they stay the same.