Invitation to Soul's Calling - free PDF

[Omnifray]

...

No one knows their fate, so how can someone immersed in a character know it either?

You do kind of put up Chinese walls in your head between your in-character and out-of-character knowledge though. I mean, you don't literaly believe that you ARE your character (that would be psychotic). You experience a kind of dual consciousness (borrowing a term from Merlin/Stanislavsky, i.e. acting theory) or double consciousness (borrowing a term from Dawson, Drama and the Dramatic, in the Critical Idiom series). You deal with game-mechanics and real life issues to some extent at the same time as thinking in-character. It's just that you put the out-of-character stuff to the back of your mind.

You don't have to have exactly the same knowledge as your character to be immersed. For instance, play a Cthulhu LARP, and be immersed. Your character doesn't know he's at risk of turning into a worm-eating crazyman or being eaten by a transdimensional demon, but you do. That doesn't spoil your immersion. On the contrary, it makes the game more enjoyable, and when you're enjoying the game, you're more likely to be committed to the game, and thus to the character, hence more immersion.

[Omnifray]

I think Jonny Gray's Brother's example of Boromir and Hobbits is flawed. When we're reading the book or watching the film and know that the characters are okay at this point because something needs to happen later on, the drama of the situation is gone. We're not immersed in the media any more, we don't give a toss.

I don't think you get the point I'm trying to make.

In the films the fight in Mordor is amazing - all the characters are doing cool stuff. In an immersive rpg I want it to be me doing that cool stuff. If I'm having to roll dice to say if I can and can't do it that is lame.

I don't mind losing though - when Gandalf loses to the balrog that stuff is golden - getting to narrate an epic death like that (because at the time you think it is a death) so that the rest of the party can escape is frickin' awesome. However if Frodo had been hit by some random goblin's arrow and plummeted to his doom that would have sucked.

I really feel I've dealt with this upthread. In a nutshell, (in-character) immersion involves feeling as if you're exploring the game-world (or story, I suppose) as a person within it, not as the creator/controller of the game-world or story. Having the power to narrate what happens is detrimental to that feeling. On the other hand if not having narrative control makes you frustated/bored, you will disengage with the game and not immerse. If that's the case then please, go play your games with narrative control and enjoy yourself and you can live with whatever impact that it has on your immersion that you are always (relatively more starkly, comparatively speaking) aware of being a co-creator/controller of the game-world and not simply a person within the game-world exploring it from the inside. If you really need narrative control to engage with the game, Soul's Calling really isn't written with you in mind. Soul's Calling is written for [a particular subset of] the (I believe, majority of) people who don't need narrative control in order to feel engaged. For many of them, lack of narrative control enhances their immersion because it enhances their sense of being an element within the game-world or story rather than a creator/controller of the game-world or of the "story". Soul's Calling does not allow players to have narrative control. As a player there would be generally speaking no question of you narrating your own epic death, never mind narrating how many skulls you split in a fight.

So I get what you're saying and presumably Evilgaz does too:-

You're saying that if you have to roll dice to find out what happens then it can't be assured that things will happen in what you consider to be an exciting, dramatic way, and therefore you'll find the game frustrating/boring, so you won't engage with it and won't immerse in your character's mindset.

Fine. But probably most people are happier to roll with the punches and accept that the game won't always translate into a "dramatically appropriate story". The trade-off is that they feel more like a person within the game-world, a person within the story, not someone shaping the game-world or story from outside.

[w00hoo]

Basically what this boils down to is that if your character's fate does not seem interesting / heroic / dramatically appropriate to you, you will find that off-putting in relation to your experience of the game as a whole ... and if you find the game as a whole off-putting, that prevents you from immersing in character because you're not engaging fully with the game. I can see that. (It is of course subjective - many players would not experience the same problem - but that's your personal psychology as opposed to theirs.)

Does any of that make sense to anyone other than me?

It's a bit over extreme a take on it, but it'll do.

As I say, what I care about is if a character dies then it had a point. The rest of their fate I can live with as getting out of unexpected problems is fun, but a game will tarnish if the character dies in an overly random fashion and I don't require that possibility to have character immersion. Just the same as I can roleplay a super stealthy thief when I'm not one, I can roleplay a character that thinks it might die when it isn't really going to.

[Kaiserjez]

what I care about is if a character dies then it had a point.

This.

[Kaiserjez]

Oh and Matt, cheers for your in depth replies, although I think we're disagreeing here it's still good to read your points.

If I've come across as being snarky that's not my intention - these kind of discussions are best face to face - here's looking forward to Indiecon!

[Kaiserjez]

I have just thought though -

If characters can die at any point, and the character is the only input a player has in the game, then players tend to play very cautiously. Meaning that they tend to play very risk averse characters who will not be heroic.

Now I don't want to play a cautious, risk averse character, if the main aim of the game is to immerse myself. I can be a cautious, safe, risk averse dude ALL THE TIME when im not playing! Why do i want to play that same person in a roleplaying game? Why would i want to iimmerse myself in a boring character?

[Omnifray]

Oh and Matt, cheers for your in depth replies, although I think we're disagreeing here it's still good to read your points.

If I've come across as being snarky that's not my intention - these kind of discussions are best face to face - here's looking forward to Indiecon!

I'm not taking it as snark.

In principle, anything which increases the post-count and view-count on the Omnifray hosted forums has at least something going for it!!

Anyway I'm not sure we're really disagreeing in analysis. You're saying "XYZ disrupts my in-character immersion" and I'm saying "fine, I think you're in a minority but anyhow you're probably not one of the people this game was written for". So different things work for my immersion than for yours, but we probably by now both understand each other's position.

Even so, if you decide despite our different preferences and differences in immersive psychology to give Soul's Calling a go at Indiecon, you're more than welcome to pitch up and play, it being understood, obviously, that everyone who pitches up and plays is going to be roleplaying immersively, and even if they're not doing it in exactly the style I describe in the Invitation to Soul's Calling PDF, they won't be going out of their way to roleplay in a storygamey way.

It may also be worth saying that competent playing in combination with good reffing should come pretty close to eliminating "dramatically inappropriate" character deaths in immersive tabletop games... the ref will at least try to make the death seem dramatically appropriate if he can and players who aren't being stupid about it aren't going to walk into a needless death...

... which brings me onto saying that in an immersive tabletop roleplaying game, whilst the players are roleplaying immersively, paradoxically the ref is often, in effect, storygaming. For instance if Montsegur 1244 is a game of four mini-GMs (as it has been described), couldn't you say that an immersive RPG is a game where one player is in effect playing a storygame which is a bit like Montsegur 1244, and the other players are doing something rather different... the one player who is in effect playing a storygame, he's the GM.

[Omnifray]

I have just thought though -

If characters can die at any point, and the character is the only input a player has in the game, then players tend to play very cautiously. Meaning that they tend to play very risk averse characters who will not be heroic.

Now I don't want to play a cautious, risk averse character, if the main aim of the game is to immerse myself. I can be a cautious, safe, risk averse dude ALL THE TIME when im not playing! Why do i want to play that same person in a roleplaying game? Why would i want to iimmerse myself in a boring character?

This point was already made upthread by Neil Gow under the heading of "middle class white man syndrome" which I then contrasted with "adventuring psychopath syndrome". The fact is most immersive roleplayers IME choose a heroic or action-grabbing character concept, immerse themselves in that character and play according to that personality, because they are adopting that personality while they play. They become heroically minded just like their character would be. So, generally speaking, it's not a problem. But I have heard of a LARPer hiding under a table for a long time during a big fight, so I'm not saying it can't happen.

[Neil Gow]

I've been wracking my mind to come up with a concise question or statement that sums up my feelings on this. I think there are two.

The first is that one of the problems with anything like this, Matt, is that you have taken a term 'immersion' and made a very good attempt to make it your own. Other people, however, may have other ideas and thus debate is spawned. I guess what I'm trying to say is don't be shocked with people don't have the same definition of immersion as you do!

The second is a question - how can I become immersed in my character, live in the mind of my character, when my actions are narrated by a third party?

Expanding that slightly, the combination of absolute GM authority, impressionistic combat and GM narration of results leads to a very powerful loss of agency for the player. I can suggest the desired actions of my character but the GM has the absolute right to tell me what I do and how I do it, including potentially the mannerisms, speech and executions without any contradiction by me, the player of the character?

Personally, I find that relationship quite old fashioned and completely disempowering for the player. Do you have impressionistic social rules as well?

I'm also going to echo what Jez said, I appreciate your extensive replies as its been very entertaining to read someone who is clearly passionate about what they do!

Neil

[Evilgaz]

I don't think you get the point I'm trying to make.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand 95% of this thread.

[Omnifray]

... one of the problems with anything like this, Matt, is that you have taken a term 'immersion' and made a very good attempt to make it your own. Other people, however, may have other ideas and thus debate is spawned. I guess what I'm trying to say is don't be shocked with people don't have the same definition of immersion as you do!

Forgey theory has produce a huge range of vocabulary to describe storygamey things, but there's far less concrete vocabulary available to describe immersive styles of roleplay and explain their key focus, which for instance has nothing to do with creative agendas at all. It's all about an experiential agenda (and I didn't coin that). So yes, I would like to help give the term "immersive roleplaying game" more currency and a more widely understood meaning so that it's easier to explain to folks what my games and games like them are all about - especially to folks who may have been exposed to theories like GNS, which don't accommodate immersive roleplay at all adequately.

But what's striking is that even Kaiserjez is using essentially, and probably exactly, the same definition of in-character immersion that I'm using - he's talking about the same psychological phenomenon. He may have a different experience of that phenomenon than I have, because clearly his psychology is different to mine. But he's identifying the same thing.

The second is a question - how can I become immersed in my character, live in the mind of my character, when my actions are narrated by a third party?

Expanding that slightly, the combination of absolute GM authority, impressionistic combat and GM narration of results leads to a very powerful loss of agency for the player. I can suggest the desired actions of my character but the GM has the absolute right to tell me what I do and how I do it, including potentially the mannerisms, speech and executions without any contradiction by me, the player of the character?

Personally, I find that relationship quite old fashioned and completely disempowering for the player.

If the ref were in fact to intervene to the extent of in substance playing my character for me, my immersion would very likely end immediately. Wars have been started over less. (Well, wars of words at least.) Using the tool of absolute GM authority to that extent is inadvisable. But having the tool there in the first place is inherent in the preservation of GM secrets alongside a coherent game-world. Good "trad" GMing is partly about knowing when to use the tools at your disposal. Good refs show restraint. It is still the ref's choice precisely when to show restraint, but even so, he knows that he ought to show restraint, and he does. Surely that is not a hard concept to grasp?

Edited to add:- the fundamental thing, of course, is that immersion is about feeling that you are the character, and not the co-creator/author/controller of the game-world/story. I think your fundamental complaint about the style of play I promote is one of disempowerment, rather than of counterimmersive gaming. But narrative empowerment is what storygames provide; immersion is what immersive roleplaying games provide. Of course the truth lies somewhere in the middle - either style of game can give you an opportunity to influence the story and to experience immersion - but giving the GM ultimate authority or sharing narrative authority among the players is what shifts the focus onto immersion or narrative influence respectively.

Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. See it in practice. It is not completely disempowering for the player.

Do you have impressionistic social rules as well?

There are two ways of processing social encounters. You either roleplay out the dialogue in direct speech, or the ref narrates it. Ref narration of dialogue is analogous to impressionistic action resolution in the sense that it's simpler and quicker. The ref takes into account your stats and general circumstances but unlike impressionistic action resolution it's not randomised. Roleplaying out the dialogue means you roleplay it out freeform, but the ref is biased in your favour or against you (or may be neutral) depending on how the dice checks went which you rolled beforehand.

If the ref narrates the dialogue, it's generally going to be a fairly cursory description such as "you are fed well at the feast in your honour and spend several hours having to tell and retell the story of how you fought your way onto the pirate ship to rescue the infant prince"... it's not meant to be something that's going to disempower you from roleplaying your character.

The proof is in the pudding. See how it works in practice.

[Omnifray]

I don't think you get the point I'm trying to make.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand 95% of this thread.

It does cover some fairly obscure territory. On the other hand most of the territory has at least now been more or less covered!

[Baz King]

I see this thread as more like an installation. It's good to walk around it, to ask yourself questions, and to come away with a faint feeling you've missed something important.

Is there a gift shop?

[Pete]

Hi

The first is that one of the problems with anything like this, Matt, is that you have taken a term 'immersion' and made a very good attempt to make it your own. Other people, however, may have other ideas and thus debate is spawned. I guess what I'm trying to say is don't be shocked with people don't have the same definition of immersion as you do!

Jesus Neil, really? You're going to attempt to bodge the thread down into a precise definition of immersion that everyone can agree on? Matt has already defined his take on immersion upthread, so let's not do this. It's great trolling you're doing here Neil, but I thought one of your stated goals in posting on this forum was Don't Be A Dick. With your last post you're failing at that. Try harder next time.

The combination of absolute GM authority, impressionistic combat and GM narration of results leads to a very powerful loss of agency for the player. I can suggest the desired actions of my character but the GM has the absolute right to tell me what I do and how I do it, including potentially the mannerisms, speech and executions without any contradiction by me, the player of the character?

You don't troll all that often Neil, and your lack of experience shows. Again, repeat the words Don't Be A Dick before posting next time, thanks.

You're assuming an extreme position, one that is as stupid as saying "in narr games, players just make up whatever they like." I know that you know what the word continuum means, so please consider said word in the context of the immersive play that Matt is quite ably describing.

Personally, I find that relationship quite old fashioned and completely disempowering for the player.

Since you feel that way, which is fine and all, go play other games since Soul's Calling is clearly not for you.

I'm also going to echo what Jez said, I appreciate your extensive replies as its been very entertaining to read someone who is clearly passionate about what they do!

Ah, the old troll strategy of encouraging fake bonhomie, but the attempt is quite transparent. Neil, it's time for another attempt at the whole Not Being A Dick thing, cheers!

[Pete]

I see this thread as more like an installation. It's good to walk around it, to ask yourself questions, and to come away with a faint feeling you've missed something important. Is there a gift shop?

Three trolls in one thread?!?! Monsieurs, you are spoiling us weeth the trolling.