thread: 2005-06-02 : Immersion
On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka wrote:
To further explain how I connect the stances with immersion I will describe how my own game (Orpheus) functions. There are four player and me as the GM. By social contract we divide the game time in a number of different "types". We have been trying to formalise them and the shifts between them as there can be much confusion if different players are in differetn types. This is the first time i define them in this much detail. From what I know about "you" rpg theory thes types are at least closely related to the stances.
Type 1: High immersion conversations. You act out as much as you can instead of describing the actions. You shout if your character shouts but if you want to spit you have to describe it. You often play with your whole body, mobing around when the character does. No rules, immersion is high.
Type 2: In character actions. As soon as conversation is not the main part of a scene, more out of character descriptions are allowed. Players most often do not play their characters using ther bodies. Rules are avoided whenever possible. Immersion is lowered to accomodate a different type of scene.
Type 3: Combat. Do not happen at all during all sessions. Heavy use of rules because we find that it adds a level of tension not possible with ruleless combat. The immersion is low but we experience other types of fun.
Type 4: Out of character planning. No first person play at all and a much more strategic gaming. A player can say about her character "Today Nagi goes see her brother" and we discuss what happens during her visit. Here players are very free to introduce things in the game as they wish, as long as it stays within our social contract. They sometimes switch to another character. They are still expected make descisions based mainly on their characters wished, not their own. In this type we still use few rules but not because of the immersion. We could have used very heavy rules without lowering it further as it is virtually zero even without rules.
Type 5: Game and character planning. This only happens between games. We all discuss where we want to take the game and the characters. The players often suggest scenes where some aspect of their character will be likely to display. We discuss what was good and what can be better next time. No immersion, few rules.
This game can accomodate most types of stories, while still offering sections of comparably high immersion. In some cases we do not want a diverse story, but instead focus only on the immersion. In this case we play a game with focus on long character dialogue, witch can be played out using only type 1. This gives another kind of focus but primary more time for deep immersion scenes. Have you heard of "less is more". Mixing diffent types of fun do not necessarily makes for even more fun. For a person (not me) who feel immersion is much more important than other types of fun, playing with less immersion than type 1 is pointless. They gladly sacrifice story diverity to get a bigger share of immersion. I do not claim they do not understand fun, only that their fun is diffent.
So, depending on witch type of scene you play, different ammount of rules can be used without ruining the immersion. And switching between the types, primarily when entering type 1 and 2, *do* take some time, which prevents us from using interlacing them with rules.
Larps (as we play them) take place at even lower types and higher levels of immersion, how high depending on the larp in question and your personal ability for immersion.
Do you get me at all? At least a little bit?
(pardon my spelling and grammatic errors)
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
