There seems to be this perception out there that all immersionists talk about their relationship to character as if it's a magical or mystical process that cannot be explained, and that this leads many of the theorists to get exasperated and decide that immersionists simply are obfuscating because object to the analysis of their play. I disagree with this, and I find it rather dismissive.
For what it's worth, I was talking about people who object to analysis of their play, not about immersionists.
For what it's further worth: I sure do agree with everything she says! Especially: WTF?
1. On 2005-11-14, Neel wrote:
Pretty much everything I know about gaming, I learned from about one quarter of Keith Johnstone's Impro, and my agenda for learning more about gaming is figuring out the other half.
He's got this long, long chapter on what he calls Mask play, and which gamers might call immersion. It's from the three-quarters I don't fully understand. Maybe you should read it and explain it to me...?
You're right, though... that linked post of yours was the last thing I read before I started writing the post. I didn't point you out, or specifically quote it, because even though I Grrr'd when I read it that one line, I feel you do a better job than most about trying to find ways to build bridges. Your three rules, for example, made me really happy. :)
I'm also glad to hear you agree with the post. I hope that continues as the series goes on, and that I can get out all the stuff that's rattling around in my head!