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

[Emerikol]

AD&D is a nightmare in its presentation. Just to give a few examples:

I agree. I remember many an occasion when I was younger when we'd have to scour everywhere looking for rules.

I did like the narrative voice Gygax used and I liked ultimately the intent of the game and how it was DM'd but it was chaoticly presented no doubt.

 

[darkbard]

I did like the narrative voice Gygax used and I liked ultimately the intent of the game and how it was DM'd but it was chaoticly presented no doubt.

Jeez, @Emerikol, you think you'd be down with that!

 

[Emerikol]

Jeez, @Emerikol, you think you'd be down with that!

 

[innerdude]

Maybe we've seen how early 2000s Forge-ism damaged campaigns and even destroyed play groups, and don't want to give it an inch lest it take a mile.

Right, of course, it's the fault of the theory that problems occurred. It couldn't possibly have been that the theories (however incomplete and imperfect) brought about a different level of cognitive awareness for some participants, who realized they were dissatisfied with what was happening in their RPG play. Even if the theories (however incomplete and imperfect) happened to give those participants new ways to think about and express their experiences, far better that we avoid "damaging" and "destroying" play groups. Game theory is simply too dangerous to the health of our hobby to risk any discussion of the matter. Participants in RPG play who are uneasy and dissatisfied, but don't know why, should just soldier on blindly, because the GM is always right, dammit!


Apropos to the topic at hand, however, it's a bit curious how this discussion has veered into the topic of the assumed role(s) of the GM / GM authority on group dynamics. While interesting, I'm wondering what the connection is to exploring the dynamics of immersion / player stance.

Is there some connecting thread that I missed? I'll admit that I skipped 5-6 pages of conversation.

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?

One hypothesis, I suppose, is that by limiting player views/inputs to "only be from within the character," it naturally/necessarily forces the player to adopt certain mental models/tactics/frames within which to imagine the shared fiction. Since the player can't have input into the scene- or historical-level aspects of the fiction, there's little reason for them to step outside character view when attempting to place their character in the fiction.

 

[Aldarc]

One hypothesis, I suppose, is that by limiting player views/inputs to "only be from within the character," it naturally/necessarily forces the player to adopt certain mental models/tactics/frames within which to imagine the shared fiction. Since the player can't have input into the scene- or historical-level aspects of the fiction, there's little reason for them to step outside character view when attempting to place their character in the fiction.

But this is also easily achieved within AP play, which may impose similar restrictions on inputs, so it's not as if "living world" (sandbox) play is required.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

One hypothesis, I suppose, is that by limiting player views/inputs to "only be from within the character," it naturally/necessarily forces the player to adopt certain mental models/tactics/frames within which to imagine the shared fiction. Since the player can't have input into the scene- or historical-level aspects of the fiction, there's little reason for them to step outside character view when attempting to place their character in the fiction.

As @Aldarc pointed out, this isn't unique to sandbox/living world style games as I understand them, but it very often goes hand in hand.

And yeah I think you’ve got the crux of it; by only thinking in a way that’s considered “in character”, player thought is more aligned with character thought. I’ve seen many people online claim that this is of paramount importance to them, and is actually the only “true roleplaying”. Anything that requires them to make a decision as a player rather than as the character is seen as disruptive to their in-character view.

And although I think that conclusion is nonsense, I can at least understand this as a priority of play. I would disagree that it objectively enhances immersion, but since what will enhance immersion is subjective, I accept that it is so for some folks.

And I think that it can help with immersion, even if I don’t treat it with paramount importance. Putting yourself in a character’s shoes, so to speak, is one way to immerse yourself. It’s absolutely a part of what I do, maybe even the biggest part, and I expect it is for most players.

But, there are other methods, too.

 

[Emerikol]

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?

One hypothesis, I suppose, is that by limiting player views/inputs to "only be from within the character," it naturally/necessarily forces the player to adopt certain mental models/tactics/frames within which to imagine the shared fiction. Since the player can't have input into the scene- or historical-level aspects of the fiction, there's little reason for them to step outside character view when attempting to place their character in the fiction.

This is why I differentiated between types of immersion. From a roleplaying point of view, it is impossible to be immersed in a game of chess. Yet I will admit I've been intensely focused on a game of chess to such a degree that I do not notice the hours passing. I am intensely focused. This is not the immersion I talk about when I talk about roleplaying immersion.

For me roleplaying immersion is immersion into the character. How much do you and the character become one. You are the character in the same way you are the protagonist when reading a great novel. I never really thought of using immersion in the chess way until I realized that I thought many of you were meaning it that way. Any activity under the right circumstances can be immersive in that sense. It's not the sense I meant when talking about roleplaying immersion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Maybe we've seen how early 2000s Forge-ism damaged campaigns and even destroyed play groups, and don't want to give it an inch lest it take a mile.

The irony here being that early 2000s Forge-ism wasn't being written for a D&D audience at all. Instead it was being written about the WoD/Storyteller games and trying to answer the question of why they weren't delivering on what they promised. The early 00 D&D games (and indeed most of D&D outside the 90s) were much more gameist/challenge focussed and although what the Forge was talking about was interesting it needed adapting.

 

[S'mon]

The irony here being that early 2000s Forge-ism wasn't being written for a D&D audience at all. Instead it was being written about the WoD/Storyteller games and trying to answer the question of why they weren't delivering on what they promised. The early 00 D&D games (and indeed most of D&D outside the 90s) were much more gameist/challenge focussed and although what the Forge was talking about was interesting it needed adapting.

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).

 

[pemerton]

by only thinking in a way that’s considered “in character”, player thought is more aligned with character thought. I’ve seen many people online claim that this is of paramount importance to them, and is actually the only “true roleplaying”. Anything that requires them to make a decision as a player rather than as the character is seen as disruptive to their in-character view.

For me roleplaying immersion is immersion into the character. How much do you and the character become one. You are the character in the same way you are the protagonist when reading a great novel.

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.