2005-06-02 : Immersion
You know that thing where you're so into your character that you adopt her emotions, mannerisms, outlook, mood, heart and soul? It's a rush? You aren't thinking about your character, you just do what she'd do without thinking? It gives you deep insights into your character that turn out, on reflection, to be deep insights into yourself, your friends, and the world? It feels totally alien and natural at once? You crave it? That's what I mean by immersion. I assume that's what everybody means by it.
This is more a rant than an essay. Perhaps you will accuse me of geek hate!
1) Way back in the dim history of the endeavor, someone noticed that one of the qualities of immersion is that you don't really think about anything else. Being an emotionally stunted moron, or perhaps just not thinking about it very hard, this person concluded that immersion happens because you don't think about anything else.
Why his friends didn't step in and say "uh no that's stupid" I don't know. Why his fellows didn't laugh him out of the endeavor I also don't know. But now look what we've got!
(Okay, probably it wasn't just one person and his negligent friends and fellows. Probably it was a whole series of small stupidities perpetrated by otherwise smart, reasonable people. Whatever.)
2) Now what we've got is a lame fixation on bogeymen. It's taken as given that a whole raft of entirely positive things will prevent immersion. Things like: game rules where you make decisions as a player, not as your character. Having input into the game's fiction outside of your character's actions and immediate reach. Acting on your shared ownership of your fellow players' characters and allowing them to act on their shared ownership of yours. Thinking about your character's past and future decisions from your own point of view too, not exclusively your character's. Having goals and plans for the game outside of your character's goals and plans. Playing more than one character!
"Will prevent immersion." What nonsense.
I grant that you don't do those things during immersion, at its most intense. But saying that those things prevent immersion is like saying that the commercials prevent your favorite TV show.
3) I dismiss out of hand anyone who says "I once played a game where we admitted our shared ownership of our characters [or pick one], and I didn't immerse at all, therefore..." Okay, you didn't. Drawing conclusions from that is like "I once played Shadowrun, and it sucked, therefore dice pools are anti-fun." Might it, just possibly, have been something else that prevented your immersion? Something maybe coincidental to admitting your shared ownership? Or possibly some combination of admitting your shared ownership plus something else not on the list?
I dismiss, like I say, out of hand. I trust you to think harder than that.
4) Some of you think that I'm saying or about to say something like this: "our intent focus on immersion has blinded us to other, just as fun ways to play." And you're already responding: "maybe so, Vincent, but immersion is my favorite, and those other ways to play may be just as much fun but I don't like them as much." Wrong!
See, that buys into the stupidbad false dichotomy. Let it go. What I'm really saying and about to say is this:
Our shared misunderstanding of what makes immersion happen has parched our experience. WE CAN HAVE IT ALL. Our big monkey brains are fully capable of having immersion and those other kinds of fun all at the same time.
So time to choose. Here are your choices.
Door 1: You immerse. When you immerse, immersion's the only kind of fun you have. When you don't immerse, it's not fun at all.
Door 2: You immerse. When you immerse, you have immersion plus other kinds of fun. When you don't immerse, it's fun anyway.
I don't know about you, but duh.
5) Okay, what's really behind Door number two?
I propose that Immersion happens when three things coincide. Unlike points 1-4, this is not rant, it's an honest proposal. Banish stupid conventional wisdom, reflect on your experiences, evaluate critically, and then yes! Argue, construct, disclaim, make counter-proposals of your own. This is the conversation.
The three things are the affirmed rightness of your vision, permission to act with passion, and faith in the robustness of the game's fiction. ("Time" is not one of the three, although they all take non-zero time to develop.)
The affirmed rightness of your vision
This is social. Your fellow players share ownership of your character, remember; you want and need for them to affirm that your vision of your character is right. They trust you with your character. They won't step in and contradict, override, undercut.
Permission to act with passion
Furthermore, whatever you have your character do, they won't react defensively. If your character threatens something they value, they'll deal with the threat passionately in response, but without ever carrying the struggle up into the social level.
You aren't constrained by the fear that having your character act might step on someone else's toes.
Faith in the robustness of the game's fiction
And you have to trust that the game has room for your character in it. You can't be worrying whether this decision that your character's making might break the game. You have to know, securely enough that it's unconscious, that even if your character transforms the game entirely, the game'll survive.
There. The affirmed rightness of your vision, permission to act with passion, and faith in the robustness of the game's fiction.
6) Personal to J: You and Vicky Vance make enormous sense to me in this light. Far more sense to me than "PTA forces distance between you and your character." What do you think?
Personal to Meg and Emily: in our Ars Magica game, sometimes I'm a particular character, of course. But most of the rest of the time I'm like half-immersed in Acanthus, Severin, and maybe Dezjo or Manuela or whoever else needs to be at hand. I'm thinking as myself, but with my characters right there, jostling and ready to jump up if anything catches their attention. So that's wicked fun. How about you?
Personal to me: in Moose in the City, when Ron passed me that note, my heart just filled with my character. It was the opposite of an undercut; it said that Ron saw my character clearly and was committed to me fulfilling his potential. It was a powerful affirmation.
So sharing ownership can absolutely foster immersion.
7) Immersion and RPG design. Look back now to the list of bogeymen. See how any of them might screw up immersion, by screwing up one of the three thingies, but needn't?
How about a famously non-immersive game: Universalis. Is it because Universalis has such metagamey rules? Because you have to pay attention to things other than your one character? I propose that it is not. I propose that it's because your vision of any given character is always at least a little bit contentious. Your fellow players rarely positively affirm the rightness of your vision, and never formally; the best affirmation you can usually hope for is for nobody to sling coins at you to challenge it. Consequently you don't bond with any of the characters in that immersive way.
So could you design an RPG specifically to foster immersion, but still a solid, well-designed no-myth formalist game? I bet you could. I bet you could and it would work a charm.
1. On 2005-06-02, Ben Lehman said:
Damnit, Vincent, you totally scooped my Immersion essay!
:-(
More to say later. I must stop being a lazy putz now.
2. On 2005-06-02, Vincent said:
I'm a pig that way.
But, well, that's awesome! Now you have the more time for "Gamism: why?"
3. On 2005-06-02, Ed H said:
Oh dude, don't stress about that little "geek hate" thing. I just spout stuff. :)
I have never had any opinion one way or the other about dangers to "immersion," personally.
4. On 2005-06-02, Brand Robins said:
I?ve never been a big immerser, a quality which for years made me think there was something wrong with the way I played. In that period I made several observations that I could never articulate fully until having hung about on the Forge for a bit and dealt with the genial madness there. The first that came to my mind when reading the rant was that I find the idea that a fully built, detailed, setting helps with immersion to be false. Now, I won?t claim it doesn?t work for anyone, but for me the more detail a setting has the more my already considerable problems with immersion multiply. To often RPGers use setting details to block, rather than support, character vision and a character?s ability to fit into the world. Anything from ?it?s not on the right side of the street, the maps says its on the left? to ?dude, no one in this world would act that way? or a host of similar issues, the setting details often get used to constantly remind you that you are not your character, are not in that world, and must pay attention to externals and manuals in order to approach your character.
Even in the cases where detailed settings are used to build a community consensus, I?ve most often heard the consensus being described as a feeling of shared community between players that has little to nothing to do with the use of the detail in an immersive capacity. I have, in discussions with Tekumel players, often heard statements along the lines of ?and then the GM said the ship had three masts, and well all grinned at each other like ?Oh yea, it?s a Shen vessel? and knew we all knew what it meant? and fewer ?the GM said the ship had three masts, and I started thinking about how the Shen had killed my mother.?
Now, I do know that the details sometimes lead to immersive moments, but mostly it seems to be the shallower details ? the things that everyone knows that don?t require a particular level of mastery over the setting, that do that. The more a setting detail is seen as a mastery point, something that only initiates can speak about, the more it becomes something about geek cred between players and less about immersion in the characters. In this I?d directly contrast setting details like the coats from Dogs, caste marks in Exalted, and heraldry in Pendragon to knowing the names of the Five Arkats in Glorantha, the names of the first masters of the Traditions in Mage, or the schematics of a tramp freighter in Star Wars. In the first cases you have easy details that give a shared world in a few simple gestures, allowing people to immerse into their characters based on a simple set of shared assumptions. In the second you have increasingly detailed information that is mostly only pertinent for the mastery of knowing the information.
5. On 2005-06-02, anon. said:
All this seems okay to me. I like the idea of pinpointing what immersion is in order to design for it. It's all spectacularly practical.
My question is, for that middle thing, "Permission to act with passion," how would you design towards fostering that? I see that as totally a social contract level thing. I'm not picturing how a game text could influence that, beyond just saying, "Players should give each other permission to act with passion." Or would that be all you needed?
6. On 2005-06-02, ethan_greer said:
Shit. That was me.
7. On 2005-06-02, Brendan said:
I'm going to bust a taboo and make a theatre-roleplaying connection here. Vincent, your stupid moron in (1) could have been Stanislavski, or Brando, or any drama teacher, or any drama student who went out and bought a Basic Set. It all derives from a flawed perception of Method acting: the belief that opaqueness will always trump transparency for quality of performance.
But as any worthwhile theatre professional will tell you, Method is bunk, and bad Method is a blinding horror, and it's better to avoid them both than risk the latter.
8. On 2005-06-02, Matt said:
Hey Brand: It sorta says something to me that the "good" immersive setting elements are exactly those that I'd imagine showing up in a good movie, while the "bad" ones are absolutely not.
The more I think about this rant, the more I think that player empowerment rules are the best way to provide that immersive quality V's talking about. Think about that bit in Dogs where you have the pre-game conflict with "I wish I learned to forgive my dad" or whatever, vs. a list of the character's height, weight, homeland, etc. Which one's better to zap you right into "who my guy really is" world?
Plus, what about the notion of you and me both being totally immersed in your character at the same time? That'll get you thinkin', won't it?
9. On 2005-06-02, Brand Robins said:
Well, I?d assume that there would be some degree of immersion in the other PCs in a well setup game. After all one of the fundamentals of dramatic theory (all the way from Aristotle to Boal) is that one must be able to empathize with the protagonists enough to live vicariously through them. And that?s when you are simply watching a staged production that you have no control over (audience ownership of dramatic forms isn?t always a simple subject, btw, where control usually is fairly clear) ? if you have characters you are invested with, there should be some ability to form joint immersion.
In fact, I?ve always considered such joint immersion to be one of the best things that I got out of the Forge and talks about narrativist games in which the characters do not form a group or party, but are linked only by being part of the same story. It doesn?t always happen, as many of my players are still utterly focused on their own characters, but it does happen occasionally and when it does it changes the whole focus of the game. So much so, in fact, that I?ve started considering doing a new Pendragon game in which the normal generational rules are crossed with Ars Magic style troupe play in order to create a story that is about a dynasty (rather than about specific key individuals within a dynasty), and such a story would require group immersion in more than one character as well as in the family line as a whole.
10. On 2005-06-02, Jonas Barka said:
As I see it you say that rules do not interfere with immersion. You can have both and that is bettet than having only immersion.
I belive this reasoning is in part flawed. To show my point I will use your example of the TV-show. You write:
"I grant that you don't do those things during immersion, at its most intense. But saying that those things prevent immersion is like saying that the commercials prevent your favorite TV show."
The commercials do not *hinder* the show in the sense that it stil happen, but I (and I belive many people with me) think they do lower some values of the show. That value could be immersion but can as well be called focus or something else. Take a horror movie as an example. The director have planned the move to be as scary as possible. The darkness, the music, the plot, everything strives to make you *live* the movie.
What happens when you insert commercial breaks in this work? You won't have any problem with the plot but every break resets the mood that has been building up in your head. You have to start over from square one. Imagine if there was short commercial breaks every minute of the move. Would it be scary at all? No, because it takes some time to build up the immersion.
How do this apply to rps:s then? Either you talk about about something else when you say "immersion" or you are *really* good at it. For myself and everyone I know it takes time to get in character and every time you act outside your character you have to start over. It takes maybe one minute to get resonable in character and up to an hour or more to more or less completely supress your ordinary self (usually only attainable in larps).
This means you have to limit the use of rules to between lengthier in character sessions of maybe 10-15 minutes. In this way rules *do* limit the ammount of immersion in a game. I'm not entierly opposed to rules as long as you realise that how and when you use them determines the level of attainable immersion. As well as a TV show may gain something by being separated into episodes the game generally gains from breaking for a new scene, describing certain things out of character, switching characters or even rolling some dice. These things add to the fun but detracts from the immersion. Finding the balance when everyones fun factor is maximised takes some experimenting with your gaming group.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
11. On 2005-06-02, Jonas said:
Jonas, there is a degree to which I agree with you. However, let me suggest that the problem with the "break" is not that there is a break, but the method of determining when it comes and whether or not the medium is suited for the type of break being taken.
To go back to analogies for a moment: your point about movies on TV is well taken. A break where the original intention did not call for a break can cause problems in focus. However, things made for television, shows such as Buffy: The Vampire Slayer or The Shield, often use the break to increase the tension or for other dramatic effect. In being created for a medium where they know there will be breaks, the scriptors come to rely upon those breaks rather than dread them. The same thing applies to theatre, where it is often standard to have an intermission in which there is a break in the midst of the action. Good plays use this break for dramatic effect, often marking the point where we?re reaching anagnorisis (the point where the protagonist realizes they have made a mistake and must change or be destroyed) and increasing the tension the audience feels. There have also been theorists who have suggested that the talk that takes place out of the auditorium, while people mingle and have drinks during the intermission, actually increases audience buy-in and stimulates them towards a limited form of ownership through discourse and speculation. The break does not ruin the focus, it enhances it (though it may change it as well).
Under that paradigm, I?d suggest that the reason that folks have problems with rules breaking immersion is not because of the fact that there is a break. It is because the breaks come at the wrong time, or with the wrong emphasis. Which is a fancy way of saying: the rules of traditional RPGs do not make for good breaks in places where a pause will increase drama and focus, but detract from it by focusing on the wrong things. Games that focus on the mechanical physics of the world would be a prime offender in cases like these, but games that focus on the dramatic or personal mechanisms of drama and development could, like intermissions and commercials in shows made for TV, increase the focus.
12. On 2005-06-02, Brand Robins said:
Jonas, there is a degree to which I agree with you. However, let me suggest that the problem with the "break" is not that there is a break, but the method of determining when it comes and whether or not the medium is suited for the type of break being taken.
To go back to analogies for a moment: your point about movies on TV is well taken. A break where the original intention did not call for a break can cause problems in focus. However, things made for television, shows such as Buffy: The Vampire Slayer or The Shield, often use the break to increase the tension or for other dramatic effect. In being created for a medium where they know there will be breaks, the scriptors come to rely upon those breaks rather than dread them. The same thing applies to theatre, where it is often standard to have an intermission in which there is a break in the midst of the action. Good plays use this break for dramatic effect, often marking the point where we?re reaching anagnorisis (the point where the protagonist realizes they have made a mistake and must change or be destroyed) and increasing the tension the audience feels. There have also been theorists who have suggested that the talk that takes place out of the auditorium, while people mingle and have drinks during the intermission, actually increases audience buy-in and stimulates them towards a limited form of ownership through discourse and speculation. The break does not ruin the focus, it enhances it (though it may change it as well).
Under that paradigm, I?d suggest that the reason that folks have problems with rules breaking immersion is not because of the fact that there is a break. It is because the breaks come at the wrong time, or with the wrong emphasis. Which is a fancy way of saying: the rules of traditional RPGs do not make for good breaks in places where a pause will increase drama and focus, but detract from it by focusing on the wrong things. Games that focus on the mechanical physics of the world would be a prime offender in cases like these, but games that focus on the dramatic or personal mechanisms of drama and development could, like intermissions and commercials in shows made for TV, increase the focus.
13. On 2005-06-02, Brand Robins said:
Bloody hell. Is there any way to delete a post here? That post saying "Jonas" as the handle was me—and a double of the post that follows it.
Sorry all.
14. On 2005-06-02, Jonas Barka said:
Brand Robins,
I get the feeling that I do not got the same definition of immersion than you (and maybe everyone else here). The thing you describe sounds more like empathy to me. The other player character feels real and you can understand an maybe sympatise with their emotion and drives. This is not the same as *being* that character. That the thoughts in your head are his and not your own. That you percive the world through him. Feels real sadness ehen he is sad and hapiness when he is happy. That is immersion to me and rolling a dice in that instance would be as unnatural as if I myself rolled a dice before speaking to a person to determine if I should make a god or bad impression.
(Again, things like rules and dice rolling may have its place in other parts of the game, but they do destroy the immersion, at least temporary.)
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
15. On 2005-06-02, Jonas Barka said:
Aaarg, the problems of people posting at the same time.....
My last post was a reply to the post of Brand Robins starting "Well, I?d assume that there would be some degree of immersion in the other PCs in a well setup game."
Here is my reply to "Jonas, there is a degree...":
I agree with you. The problem is not as much the rules as bad use of rules. But the main point still stands, as soon as you use a rule the immersion is gone. And as it takes some time to enter your character you have to limit the rules to between the scenes if you want immersion. It is impossible to mix the two of them, not in the same game, but in the same moment.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
16. On 2005-06-02, Valamir said:
It should come as no surprise to anyone whose read one of my many rants on Immersion that I'm a million percent in agreement with Vincent on this one.
When Vincent refers to "you can have it all", this is the functional immersion I've pointed out...the one that isn't broken by metagame concerns. When Vincent refers to "stupid bad conventional wisdom" this is the inherently selfish Deep Immersion I've ranted on about myself.
I also completely agree with Brand in noticing that the more hyper detailed (and unfamiliar) the setting, the harder it is to immerse. The more open to interpretation the setting is, the easier it is to act without fear...without, as Vincent has labeled, worrying about your vision being affirmed.
I would also agree with the reasoning behind Universalis being a very non-immersive experience. One of the basic premises of Uni is that you as an individual have no greater rightness of vision about anything in the game than any other player. There are mechanically enforced limits to the degree any other player will trust you to interpret your character.
I think its possible to have immersive experiences in Uni...alls it would take really is a period of time where the other players are so enthralled by your portrayal of a character that they choose to trust your vision and not undercut you. But those would be moments of play, not necessarily entire sessions worth.
Valamir@aol.com
17. On 2005-06-02, Jonas Barka said:
Valamir, can you point me to some of these rants so I can find out the difference between "functional immersion" and your "selfish Deep Immersion".
As I mean "character immersion" when i write immersion, I guess that I do not consider "functional immersion" at all and that I find "Deep Immersion" to be something entirely positive. The problem with it sometimes being selfish is countered by not being deeply immersed all the time and using time in between for setting interesting scenes and other meta concerns like how the players want to develop their characters.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
18. On 2005-06-02, Valamir said:
There were several places where it cropped up, but I think the thread below is probably the closest complete discussion. Do note that the ability and willingness to periodically come up for air and take care of meta concerns is one technique I firmly believe can make immersion functional.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10931
19. On 2005-06-02, Sven Holmstrom said:
I liked the article and I agree somewhat. Immersion is definitely possible in an ordinary game with mechanics and dice rolls. Tons of facts about world is definitely not necessary neither.
But I must say (and here I should admit that I have somewhat the same background as Jonas Barka above, even the same gaming group) that there are are different degrees of immersion and it also works different for different players.
As an example I have several times seen people cry for real in game and those who do this seem to really enjoy it and even see it as a major goal in play. I remember one girl who had never role played anything and three hours into her first effort she cried for fifteen minutes and talked while sobbing, about her man beating her and her kids. The girl who was comforting her joined her in crying.
According to all experience I have this does not happen in ten minutes between mechanics handling. For most people that would make this kind of play impossible. I definitely don't want this kind of play everytime I roleplay, but it's one kind of play which I enjoy very much (even if I can't cry in game myself). I should also add that this play is not only seen in larps, it can also be seen in some types of freeform.
Among people who do seven-day larps (I read somwhere that this is uncommon outside of the Nordic countries, but I'm not sure if that's true) I have heard the opinion that it takes at least 24 hours without any input from the real world to 'get in character'. This sound insane to me too, but I see no reason not to believe them.
My only real point with this rant is: It depends on the goal of immersion and which kind of immersive play you seek. Vincent is basically right, but there are degrees in heaven.
/Sven Holsmtrom
polyfem.blogspot.com
20. On 2005-06-02, Chris said:
Hi,
Probably a better analogy than commercials vs. tv show would be medium vs. content- that is, you don't find a problem immersing into a tv show even though it's just a 2 dimensional image being presented to you through cruddy stereo sound... That is, you become used to the medium and its no longer a distraction, but simply something you no longer are aware of- just as the medium of literature is the written word- yet it can still evoke imagery in a person's head without requiring illustration.
I'd say that the social interactions and the rules are the medium of roleplaying. They offer some constraints, but they're also the structure that makes the whole thing go. I mean, if rules screw up your immersion, then you might as well just stick to hardcore LARPS, because sitting around a table talking about things isn't very real either.
I think overall, there are two reasons people in general have gotten "caught" on Immersion as the Golden Goose-
First- the content is the neat stuff, and the assumption is that all the background stuff isn't necessary- it's like wanting the tv show without having to deal with a television set, or electricity.
Second, many people have been dealing with rules that have poorly fit what they wanted to get in their Immersion. Having to fight the rules, or work through them for something that doesn't matter to you naturally breaks Immersion... sort of like how some people can't stand subtitles on foreign films while other people can't stand dubbed voices that don't match the actor's faces... It's a matter of whether having to read or hear different voices is more of a pet peeve for you- in the same sense, some folks find going through 20 pages of combat tables to be very immersive, while other folks find having to do so in a political game when someone shanks Ceasar is complete garbage.
When you have rules that do what you want, get as crunchy as you want, where you need them to- you don't notice them anymore than you notice the fact that Jim really isn't an elven princess.
21. On 2005-06-02, John Laviolette said:
ho, Vincent. good essay, and provoking a lot of thought on how to design an immersive game... although I'd like to note that I believer there are at least two forms of immersion: character immersion and setting immersion.
almost everything I have heard people say about immersion seems to be about immersing in a character. I have never immersed in a character and don't plan on it; the way it's been described by people who enjoy it doesn't sound appealing to me at all.
but I have many times felt immersed in a setting, vividly imagining what the world would look like. setting immersion may even be a very common Simulationist feature. I'm thinking I'm not the only one who immerses in setting, since many of the flame wars over immersion vaguely suggest that the "anti-immersionists" really just don't find *character* immersion that appealing.
the reason I raise this distinction is because your suggestions on how to facillitate immersion seem to apply to both, but you're definitely emphasizing character immersion in your description. I think what you are saying may have a broader appeal than you realize...
the other comment that interested me was Brand's distinction between levels of detail and their effects on immersion. I was thinking about this (although not calling it immersion) when I designed IceRunner: I specifically chose an abstract, "light" version of the middle agea to try to emphasize the medieval feel without getting bogged down in actual historical details. I was thinking of it mainly in terms of "not having to look stuff up", but my subconscious desire, I think, was to avoid interrupting setting immersion. I think it would work well for character immersion, too.
22. On 2005-06-02, John Laviolette said:
that "ho" was supposed to be "hi". no, I am not a Thundercat.
23. On 2005-06-03, Brand Robins said:
Part of the reason for superheroes, even those not specifically superheroic but obviously beyond humanity (Neo, from the Matrix, Exalted characters, etc) has to do with the concept of distance: only someone with that amount of power can change the world ? we cannot, as we do not have that level of power. We disenfranshise ourselves, making us to little to effect change, and idolize the superman for his superior ability to change the world. We replace empathy with awe, and association with power-fantasy.
Sven: I have several women in my group who cry in game fairly often, and self-identify as character immersivists. They do, however, manage to get that kind of play even in games that have solid to heavy mechanics: Exalted, HeroQuest, and Dogs in the Vineyard. For them it is all a matter of knowing when to break to mechanics and when to just play things.
There have, in fact, been times using games that had conflict resolution where the tension of knowing a roll was coming up increased their emotional reaction to what their character was going through. I remember one where a character was talking with her lover about his family (who are members of a group that kills people of the character?s type) and about him leaving the family. Things were starting to tense up and I casually reached for the dice, trying not to distract from the play, and the player started crying hard. The scene went on, things came to a head, and then we rolled to see what happened with the girl and her lover. When I asked her, afterwards, why she started crying the player said "Because, while I?d kind of known it, when you reached for the dice I suddenly realized how bad this was, and how likely it was she was going to lose her lover."
24. On 2005-06-03, Piers said:
Maybe this putting it too simply, but, these criteria for immersion fit what I feel when I am gamemastering and everything is working.
Check, immersed in characters, check watching what is going on from outside their perspectives, check paying attention to the rules, check giving and receiving validation. And: playing with passion, rightness of vision, robustness of game world.
Is this where we are going?
25. On 2005-06-03, Ninja Hunter J said:
Yeah, V., I see how this issue applies to Vicky, that her position in the game is unclear precisely because I'm suddenly the steering force of the story and I don't want to derail anyone else's vision, particularly because I don't know where the fuck I want to go.
Speaking of which, we've got to work this out before 6:00 Saturday.
26. On 2005-06-03, Per said:
Jonas wrote:
"That the thoughts in your head are his and not your own. That you percive the world through him. Feels real sadness ehen he is sad and hapiness when he is happy. That is immersion to me and rolling a dice in that instance would be as unnatural as if I myself rolled a dice before speaking to a person to determine if I should make a god or bad impression.
(Again, things like rules and dice rolling may have its place in other parts of the game, but they do destroy the immersion, at least temporary.)"
Jonas, I think this is exactly the kind of misconception Vincent is ranting against. I have met it tons of times in RP discussions, and it seems by some to be regarded as some sort of eternal truth. Dice has nothing to do with immersion (and with real life, for that matter. Your real life argument does scare me a bit - do you bite people in the neck to suck their blood for example, or is that only kept in your RP experience? And if it is, why doesn't biting people in the neck in RP hinder immersion?)
You are saying we cannot have it all. Vincent says we can. I agree with the latter :)
Per
27. On 2005-06-03, GB Steve said:
"the commercials prevent your favorite TV show" jumped out at me. I watch the BBC which has no ads and I find TV in the US virtually unwatchable because of the frequent of adverts. We record our favourite US shows and fast forward through the ads - Desperate Housewives? 43 minutes of show, 17 minutes of ads.
Of course some intrusions will disrupt any kind of game but immersion, because it relies on ignoring the real world is more vunerable to intrusion.
As for the doors, that's not a choice that some people can make. What you enjoy is not necessarily about choice, it's whatever works for you.
28. On 2005-06-03, Some other Dane said:
I have to agree with GB Steve. In Denmark we also have no adds channels; Channels with adds between shows and channels with adds throughout the show (US style).
It got me thinking.
It is clear to me that you immerse yourself just as much in a show with commercials as in one without... eventualy. There is always a period of transition when going from commecial to show "Now, what was I watching again?" and when going from show to commecials "Wow, when did we go to commecials? I missed that" (You often do, right?)
Now, if we apply this to immesion in general, then it would be fair to say that immersion always comes after a period of transition, however long that transition period might be.
It goes to shows then that in a roleplaying session jumping in and out of immersion will also create periods of transitions. In these periods the players will be confused on the when, where and what of the scene. Sometimes maybe just for half a second, sometimes for as much as half a minute and sometimes the GM has to set the scene again to get all up to speed.
Now here is my claim. I am claiming that all players who like immersion have a breaking point when they go "
prevented my immersion".
These players might take it out on the reasons for the breakoffs. Dierolls or whatever. But in reality it is the sum of time spent in transition during a session that gets to them.
Breakoffs for meaningfull reasons are just that: meaningfull. But time spent i transition are meaningless and wasted.
What does all this build into?
While I agree with the original poster that breakoffs for whatever reasons don?t ruin immersion, I feel that the frequency off breakoffs does.
So in designing systems based on this you might think on which breakoffs are relevant and which will just add to "transition-jetlag"
Less is more.
29. On 2005-06-03, xenopulse said:
The TV thing was probably a not-so-fortunate analogy; it seems to derail the thought process somewhat. What we're talking about is not like commercials at all, because we're still in the game, and we're using game elements to further the game experience.
- Christian
30. On 2005-06-03, Vincent said:
Well, I'm not going to seriously take on both the Scandinavian Scene and The Method on my dumb little blog.
I don't know anybody here in the US doing 7-day larps. It may well be that weird things happen during 7-day larps, real break with reality shit. Religious frenzy-level break with reality shit. I've got nothing to say about that.
Tabletop play immersion, though? Even at its most intense? The rules don't have to interfere with it a single bit. Sometimes they will, but it'll be because of qualities of those particular rules, not because you used rules at all.
Read this by Brand again, and carefully:
I remember one where a character was talking with her lover about his family (who are members of a group that kills people of the character?s type) and about him leaving the family. Things were starting to tense up and I casually reached for the dice, trying not to distract from the play, and the player started crying hard. The scene went on, things came to a head, and then we rolled to see what happened with the girl and her lover. When I asked her, afterwards, why she started crying the player said "Because, while I?d kind of known it, when you reached for the dice I suddenly realized how bad this was, and how likely it was she was going to lose her lover."
I deny that less is more. I assert that better is better. Easing transition is a matter of having rules that work with immersion, not having few rules or using them infrequently. I'm'a shout: MOST ROLEPLAYERS HAVE NEVER HAD RULES THAT WORK. It's no wonder that you think that rules interfere.
GB Steve: "As for the doors, that's not a choice that some people can make. What you enjoy is not necessarily about choice, it's whatever works for you."
Everything I do here in RPG theory and RPG design is predicated on my conviction that I am the same kind of roleplayer as everybody.
31. On 2005-06-03, Vincent said:
Ethan: "My question is, for that middle thing, 'Permission to act with passion,' how would you design towards fostering that? I see that as totally a social contract level thing. I'm not picturing how a game text could influence that, beyond just saying, 'Players should give each other permission to act with passion.' Or would that be all you needed?"
Oh no, I wouldn't think so. I think you'd need pretty hardcore systemic support.
If it were me, the way I'd foster permission to act with passion is by creating security. I'll allow you to act with passion only if I know that I won't be hurt by it, is what I mean.
It's not a trivial design prob. The rules have to concretely enact your passion, make it consequential, but they also have to protect my investments in the game. In freeform games, this is the "your right to your character's fist stops at the tip of my character's nose" clause. But I think we can do better than that, as we rightly divorce "my investments" from "my character."
32. On 2005-06-03, Ben Lehman said:
Damnit, I can't keep up with this shit.
There *are* seven day American LARPs, they are very different from the Scandanavian LARPs, and they are a very interesting experience in and of themselves.
When serious immersion players are talking about immersion, they are talking about something that:
1) Usually doesn't happen in terms of a true table-top game.
2) Requires stances that we *don't even talk about* on the Forge, like something you might call kinesthetic actor stance.
3) Is exactly a religious / ritualistic / meditative / reality-breaking / altered state of consciousness thing.
Everything I do here in RPG theory and RPG design is predicated on my conviction that I am the same kind of roleplayer as everybody.
(Everyone realize that this is something that I'm saying as a friend.)
You are wrong about this. cf GNS and other Matters of Role-playing Theory and other essays.
33. On 2005-06-03, Vincent said:
Ben: "When serious immersion players are talking about immersion, they are talking about something that:
1) Usually doesn't happen in terms of a true table-top game.
2) Requires stances that we *don't even talk about* on the Forge, like something you might call kinesthetic actor stance.
3) Is exactly a religious / ritualistic / meditative / reality-breaking / altered state of consciousness thing."
I'll grant this. I don't have anything to say about it. I'm talking about tabletop, pen and paper, sessions last a few hours kind of immersion.
My concern here is that dedicated tabletop immersion players are going to claim 7-day larp style immersion, as a dodge. Nobody better pull that crap. If you read my first paragraph at the top of this post and nodded, I'm talking to you.
(And hey, what I mean is that I'm not a better roleplayer with more choices than anybody else. If I can do it, I mean, then you can do it. Whether you want to is fine either way, choose door 1! But door 2's sitting right there, I'm not some kind of special just because I can hold a character and some dice in my head at the same time.)
34. On 2005-06-03, Ben Lehman said:
Vincent—Okay, yeah, you are saying something much more reasonable than I read you as saying. *sigh of relief*
I think that the 3-day LARP (can only speak to the 3-day, having never played the 7-day) sort of immersion can be somewhat similar to tabletop immersion. There is a sense, for a lot of the players who play both types of games, that the tabletop game gives and inferior taste of what the larger game gives.
Dave may now jump in here and correct me.
yrs—
—Ben
35. On 2005-06-03, Vincent said:
Me: "I don't have anything to say about it."
I'm such a liar.
I have a certain familiarity with the ol' altered mindset / ritual / meditative / break with reality / possession experience, as it happens. Why wouldn't dice and rules be useful as any ritual tools are? The drums don't detract from Voudoun possession, presumably. The kneeling in a circle and the ritual language didn't detract from my experiences. Why would the right rules detract from wicked wack immersion?
36. On 2005-06-03, Chris said:
Hi Vincent-
Exactly- that's why I'm saying they're part of the medium- each medium is constrained by the elements of its presentation and how it gets structured. TV is structured by the screen, comic books by panels and pages, rpgs are structured according to speech and various rules we can come up with for playing with credibility(typing for irc games, acting for LARPS). As humans, we don't have any problem ignoring the constraints and still enjoying the content in other mediums- I don't see why it would have to happen in rpgs either.
37. On 2005-06-03, Vincent said:
Chris: excellent. Me neither.
38. On 2005-06-03, Sydney Freedberg said:
Brand's bit a ways back: "When I asked her, afterwards, why she started crying the player said "Because, while I?d kind of known it, when you reached for the dice I suddenly realized how bad this was, and how likely it was she was going to lose her lover."
Yes. Absolutely. Because in tabletop play (maybe in LARP play, I wouldn't know), you're not physically confronted with the external reality of your situation UNTIL the dice (or other mechanical cues) come in. In real life? If I'm 20 blocks away and stuck in traffic and already late, or my kid is about to crawl head-first off the edge of the bed and I'm a step too far away to catch her, or if the target's so tiny in the distance my shot is probably going to go wide, I can see it and know with a deep sick feeling in my gut, "I don't think I'm gonna make it."
In a tabletop RPG? Really great narration isn't the same thing: It's about you the real person at the table imagining, however vividly, your imaginary character confronting imaginary obstacles. But—and I've had this moment in Dogs—when you reach for the dice and think "I gotta roll WHAT?"—that is the same thing: I, the real person at the table, am confronting a real physical thing external to me, the dice, that is going to affect something I care about.
Caveat: Yes, the "something I care about" is a fiction. But the "I care" is for real. Thus, all the key elements are real.
39. On 2005-06-03, Neel said:
So, Dogs and immersion.
My players really liked a) the fact that the mechanics kept pushing them to escalate, and b) the fact that you could WIN a conflict just by talking, clear as day and without any doubt that the other player hadn't resisted as hard as he or she could. That worked very well.
What didn't work was picking dice for Seeing and Raising. I think I saw everyone complain about that, at least once; the process of figuring out an optimal bid was very intrusive and time-consuming, and it took them away from the narrated action. And you can't really tell them not to sweat it, because conflicts are important.
40. On 2005-06-03, Valamir said:
Actually Neel, the optimal bid thing is a bit of a smoke screen. Its some rules crunchy chrome, that when you look under the hood...almost really doesn't matter.
90% of whether you win the conflict is going to come from the total sum on all the dice rolled, and that is going to depend primarily on how many and which Traits you can roll for. Since you'll be rolling a fair fistfull of dice, the randomness of the rolls tends to have a pretty tight deviation, especially if you take Vincent's advice and do alot of smaller conflicts and follow ups.
What the different bids do...and whether you take the blow, block, or reverse is simply pace the conflict and influence who takes fallout when.
Since the majority of fall out is, ultimately, a GOOD thing in terms of character development and interest you can quickly see that spending time worrying about getting the exact right bid...is pretty much unnecessary. It is something they don't have to sweat because, while conflicts ARE important, whether you win or lose has little to do with your choice of bids.
As an interesting exercise to try, have the person sitting to the left roll the dice and work the sees and raises. The player in the conflict does nothing but narrate, and the person running the dice pushes forward dice based solely on the intensity and forcefulness of the narration. That might help with the intrusiveness some.
But ultimately...I think if your players are agonizing over the ultimate bid to the point where it becomes intrusive to their immersion...they're not groking it yet. You really DON'T need to think that hard about it.
41. On 2005-06-04, xenopulse said:
Re: the role (roll) of dice.
I found in my freeform game last week that, when I presented my players with what I thought was a bang (get yourself back into that awfully dangerous and creepy situation you just came out of to help a stranger, or stay in safety and watch him suffer), they all swiftly stormed out into danger. Why? I have a feeling they know that I, the GM, will not kill them off for it, and since it's freeform, penalties are not as tangible. Had I put dice on the table and said, "If you guys run out, you gotta roll, and there's a good chance you pay for it," that'd have been much different.
Now I realize—since I don't have dice, I won't make the stakes about those main characters anymore. I'll make them about their families and friends. Because I *will* make those character suffer and die if the PCs make the appropriate choice, and that won't take away their playing piece or limit their input into the game.
So overall, the dice are not only a "this is serious" deal, but a "it's out of our hands and it could cost us all dearly" method that allows me to do my adversity job with less hesitation.
- Christian
42. On 2005-06-04, Jonas Barka said:
Vincent: "Well, I'm not going to seriously take on both the Scandinavian Scene and The Method on my dumb little blog.
I don't know anybody here in the US doing 7-day larps. It may well be that weird things happen during 7-day larps, real break with reality shit. Religious frenzy-level break with reality shit. I've got nothing to say about that."
Thats ok. But it's not ok for you to say that the style of play and techniques used in the Scandinavian Scene can't be applied to tabletop games. The fact is that most of the games focusing on character immersion as opposed to experiencing a fantasy world do not last more than an evening. Another fact is that many of the players of scandinavian immersion larps also play tabletop and expect to experience the same thing, but on another scale. This is quite possible but most type of game mechanics (like conflict resolution) do not work at all in this context.
It all boils down to that you cannot both say you do not consider this style of gaming and still claim that rules do not hinder immersion at all.
It is very much the same reasoning as:
Person A: Color always makes for a better move than b/w.
Person B: But there are many occations where b/w is considered better because the lack of color puts the focus on other things.
Person A: Don't talk about b/w movis, I don't consider them at all.
Do you really mean that lack of rules can never enhance the rest of the game? Regarless of what you trie to experience? Do you also think a movie must always have sound, a car always have a roof and sex must always be accompanied by love?
Is it impossible to imagine that some people find rules and dice distracting and that they *really* couldn't have a better experience with them? Just because you do not feel that way can't you imagine another person functioning like that?
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
43. On 2005-06-04, Neel said:
Valamir: no, the bids are really, really important. Look at the rules again—what actually happens is determined by who has to Take the Blow. It's not whether the Dogs win their conflicts that determines what the theme is, it's what happens while they do so.
An example: Elijah, a Dog, has rescued Joanne Rutter from her mother, Elizabeth, who's a sorcereress and heretic. Now he's trying to capture the mother, and the stakes of the conflict are whether Elizabeth escapes or not.
The GM says Raises with something like, "When Elizabeth shouts, 'You stole my Joanne, you bastard, but you won't get us both!', and when Elijah comes forward she pulls the trigger and splatters Joanne's brains all over his coat." If Elijah's player has the dice to Block, then he can narrate protecting Joanne with his coat. If he doesn't, then he either has to Take the Blow, letting Joanne die, or he has to Give, and let Elizabeth get away. This is a Pyrrhic victory, at best.
Now, when you're out-diced, trying to find a Raise that will make the other guy Give is pretty much your only shot at winning the conflict. It's also really cool, from a story perspective. But unfortunately, getting into a position to do so requires a lot of dice-management thinking.
44. On 2005-06-04, Jonas Barka said:
Per: "Dice has nothing to do with immersion (and with real life, for that matter. Your real life argument does scare me a bit - do you bite people in the neck to suck their blood for example, or is that only kept in your RP experience? And if it is, why doesn't biting people in the neck in RP hinder immersion?)"
Eh? Either you really didn't get my example at all or you are just trying to score a cheap "scary gamer" point.
If I imagine (note *imagine*) a vampire and try to think and act like him i do not imagine him as driven bye rules and dice. I imagine him as functioning basically as myself with no voice in his head saying "Wait, you have to roll to find your prey". It may be harder to imagine a vampire and how he feels and what motivates him than imagining a taxi driver, but even so conflict resolution rules has *no* part in that imagined vampire.
As I would personally (in real life) be distracted by someone saying in my head "You have to roll to make a good impression on that girl" why couldn't the same thing distract me when I imagine to be a vampire?
Vincent says that you never ever have to sacrifice immersion when using rules in a game. I do not agree and do not understand how he can claim to know the mind of every person on this planet. Roleplaying is a thing of the mind, and not two minds functions in exactly the same way.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
45. On 2005-06-04, Neel said:
xenopulse: I have exactly the problem you describe in most games that have dice, too. The source of the problem is that the GM is expected to be both the moderator and the antagonist. This doesn't work all that well, because you've got a conflict of interest, and so applying full pressure feels icky. IME, one thing that works very well is to just drop significant NPCs from the game. Make all of the movers and shakers PCs, and then the role of the GM is to moderate, and everyone can go all out without worry.
46. On 2005-06-04, Per said:
Jonas, no, I don't think I understood your example then.
I read you saying something like "dice fucks with my immersion in the game just like dice would fuck with my life if I had to roll them in real life to impress a girl". Am I reading you wrongly?
I guess (hope) you cannot kill people for real in your roleplaying games. That's a rule. Does that interfere with your immersion when your character kills another character in the game's reality? If it doesn't, why do other rules, like dice rolling or card turning or hand sign or whatever?
Per
47. On 2005-06-04, Jonas Barka said:
"I read you saying something like "dice fucks with my immersion in the game just like dice would fuck with my life if I had to roll them in real life to impress a girl". Am I reading you wrongly?"
Close, but not exactly. More like "dice fucks with my immersion in the game just like dice would fuck with *my sense of being me* if I had to roll them in real life to impress a girl". I have a feeling that I control my life, and choose my own actions. I want to experience exactly the same feeling when playing a character.
If you got an alien voice in your head (*please* consider this exaple in a serious way) saying stuff like "What are the motivation for this character in this scene", "What if I should bid five power to get this job" or "Ok, lets roll to se if he escaped the burning building", would this feel natural? Wouldn't you get a feeling that something is really wrong, that you eaither is mad or that someone is watching you and controlling you. You wouldn't feel like a real person at all. You would most certainly get distracted.
Why do your character doesn't get distracted by things like this? Can you really feel that you are him while in the same time rolling dice for his actions. I can't and thats why I do not use rules when I want this kind of immersion.
"I guess (hope) you cannot kill people for real in your roleplaying games. That's a rule. Does that interfere with your immersion when your character kills another character in the game's reality? If it doesn't, why do other rules, like dice rolling or card turning or hand sign or whatever?"
In table top rpg:s there are lots of things that interferes with the immersion. The surroundings aren't real, just imagined, lots of characters are played by the same person (the GM) and many other things. Not getting to actual kill something is not the biggest problem at all for the sake of immersion (not that we usually kill stuff in our freeform games). There are many things limiting the immersion but why should you add onother one that is as easy to get rid of as saying "we have no mechanics for conflict resolution".
In a larp things are a bit different, but there are still problems with the immersion. The surroundings are not always perfect and I meet persons i know in real life and that can be distracting. Of course you cannot kill people for real and that limits the level of combat immersion (and *no* I do not strive for this to be allowed, at least not in the games I participate in). In the type if games I usually play this is solved by having no combat at all. How often do you engage in combat in real life? Probably seldom or never. There are so many scenarios to play where real fights are unlikely. It happens that you (as the character) feels like attacking someone and in these cases you have to drop the immersion and choose some other course of action. But again, just because there are limitations to the extent of the immersion, why introduce even more of these limitations in the form of rules?
Are you from Sweden? If so it would be easy for you to try one of these games, like Mellanrummet (www.ncid.org/mellan). Without trying this way of playing, how can you know that it wouldn't be ruined by adding rules? I do play rules heavy games and realise their values but if you want to focus on immersion, the rules must go.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
48. On 2005-06-04, Charles said:
Per,
When I imagine my character killing another character, and the other character's player accepts that I have killed their character, and depicts their character as dying, how is this like switching into dice rolling mode? I suppose it is to the extent that my imagining of my character performing actions is not the same as me performing my characters actions. As long as my character actions consist mostly of talking, or if I'm LARPing and my character actions are non-violent but involve movement, or I'm LARPing in a LARP with boffing or some other physical method of handling combat, then my actions as player are the same as my character's actions. Once my character is taking actions that it is not possible for me to take physically, then one level of distancing happens. If, instead of imagining and describing those actions, I must switch into a different experiential mode and consider whether my dice pool is big enough, or my rolls good enough, to undertake the action I imainge my character taking, then my thoughts as player about the situation are not in sync with my thoughts as character and an additional layer of distancing takes place. For some people, this additional layer of distancing is a killer. Others seem to be able to move back and forth between immersed and consulting rulebooks without a substantial loss of immersion. Still others seem to be able to make the equation of player consulting dice and character appraising situation so thoroughly that they remain immersed while consulting the dice.
Since everyone agrees that some degree of intermittent non-immersion is required for almost all forms of gaming (long IC conversations between two players seem to require the least non-immersive elements, which is probably why immersion junkies prefer games in which long IC conversation is the primary content of play), I don't take Vincent's original claim to be that mechanics have no negative impact on immersion. Instead, I take his claim to be two-fold:
1) A negative claim concerning immersion: Non-traditional system like shared auhority over the world, multiple characters per player, or conscious attention to what we want as players, rather than simply what our characters want, are NO MORE LIKELY to be harmful to immersion than traditional system mechanics like rolling to-hit dice or scratching out hitpoints and writing in new values.
2) A positive claim concerning immersion: system can help or hurt immersion, depending on how well it supports his three proposed underpinings of immersion.
Vince, how well does that match what you are saying?
If we are playing freeform, and I and another player disagree whether a certain event should happen, we can either break out of our immersed states and discuss whether it happened, or we can break out of our immersed states and toss a coin to see whether it happened. If we were playing with a mechanical system, we would break out of immersion and use the mechanics. How easy we will find it to get back into immersion may relate to the specifics of the mechanics, or it may not. Vincent is arguing that how the mechanics effect his 3 criteria will be more important than traditionally obvious features such as whether they involve dice, or whether people other than a GM have say over anything except characters attempting to take actions. Likewise, a ten minute discussion of what happens may break immersion less than a one minute bidding war, or it may break it more. Obviously, never reaching a disagreement about what happens in the game, and therefore playing continuously IC, would involve less interuption of immersion than play in which we disagree over what happens and need to use some sort of (formal or informal) mechanics. However, trying for play with no disagreements over what happens, and no use of mechanics, will necessarily limit the subject of play pretty severely.
I would add an additonal underpinning, which is the degree to which the mechanic requires a state of mind which is similar to the PC state of mind. If my PC is trying to be totally open and honest with another character, and the mechanics for doing so pit us as players against each other in a competitive bidding war where one of us will lose and one of us will win, then that would seem to create a conflict between what I am experiencing as player, and what I am experiencing IC, and that may act to the detriment either of my ability to effectively use the rules, or to effectively remain immersed in my character, or both. If the mechanics instead involved us as players working together against abstract difficulty, then that might better mirror the IC situation, and better allow us to remain immersed.
For instance, this parallel structure between IC situation and OC mechanics is what makes Dogs mechanics interesting, although the finickiness of dice counting and manipulation seems to have been too distracting for Neel's players. Probably, greater familiarity with the system and experience with manipulating the piles of dice would also help with that. Drumming circles may work great for someone who is well familiar with them as a means of reaching a transcendent state, but they would probably not work nearly as well for someone accustomed to za-zen or to Catholic Mass as a method of reaching transcendance.
49. On 2005-06-04, Jonas Barka said:
I completely agrees on what Charles are saying, and he is apparently much better att describing it using the theories and language most common on this blog.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
50. On 2005-06-05, anon. said:
OK, you are talking about LARPs specifically, and I am not competent at all to comment. I don't LARP.
I do disagree, though, that rules must go if you want to focus on immersion. I just don't get why that should be the case, but if you say that's how it is in LARPs, I have to take your word for it :)
Per
51. On 2005-06-05, Jonas Barka said:
Yes, for *really* deep immersion I'm talking about larp, but I still apply the same goals and techniques for tabletop rpgs. You can move from one to the other in infinitessimally small steps. For tabletop games I sometimes use rules because they can add things to a game, but when doing so I sacrifice some of the immersion. At the other end of the scale (opposed to larps) we have adventure boardgames such as Hero Quest. They can of course still offer some small taste of immersion but I play them for other resasons and do not expect to be immersed.
I can also describe it this way. Vincet writes:?
"I grant that you don't do those things during immersion, at its most intense."
He admits that rules can maybe not happen *during* the immersion, but claims that using rules *between* the immersion do not ruin the immersion.
The problem here is that if I want to have immersion and nothing else, this in between time will have to go. Consider two alternatives:
1: A game of four hours have 90% of the time as immersion, and 10% of the time dedicated to rules. The 10% of rules time do not at all make make the quality of the immersion time worse.
2: A game of four hours having 100% the time dedicated for imersion.
If imersion is the only thing I value option two is clearly the better choice. It's the same thin as that an adventure of 50% problem solving and 50% combat do not give as much problem solving as a game with 100% problem solving. If I on the other hand only like combat I want to have it non-stop even if some problem solving do not ruin the actual combat.
If you want to watch a TV show for one hour do you want 50 minutes of show and 10 minutes of commercial, or do you prefer 60 minutes of TV-show. I do and I'm quite sure you feel the same. You cannot have it all, the time spent rolling the dice is time when you do not immerse. That do not mean you cannot *combine* the two, but that is another matter.
(This do not consider time lost entering immersion, but that is not needed to show how rules take away from immersion.)
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
52. On 2005-06-05, Vincent said:
Jonas: I agree with Charles too, so I think we're good.
53. On 2005-06-05, bob the fighter said:
after re-reading Sorcerer and Sword, this discussion feels like a red-herring: folks didn't really touch on stances other than Actor stance.
i think that immersion is only part of the process: when players aren't at ALL invested in the game, and are reluctant to engage in ANY stance of play, the game suffers. i think that there is a time and a place for Actor stance, and that good stories benefit greatly from Director and Author stance alongside Actor.
further down my re-reading list was 3rd ed. D&D, and i chuckled at the dire warnings about activities that would push people "out of character". in the Dungeon Master's Guide, there's a bit about a puzzle involving a lever that's rusted out of use. the writer argues against thinking "the GM would never make an impossible puzzle!", arguing in favor of "the architects of this castle would never make an impossible puzzle!" approach to thinkin' about it.
i think that almost every game i've been in would benefit hugely from a Director/Author stance shot in the arm. historical gaming wisdom has always told me that i should focus on getting into character as much as possible. my own experience teaches me that that's fun, and it's ok, but i should really "come up for air" (props to Valamir) and make sure my single-mindedness isn't decreasing other folks' fun.
hearing vincent bellow "MOST ROLEPLAYERS HAVE NEVER HAD RULES THAT WORK." rings like a churchbell for me. pretty much any argument i've gotten into about "Rules: How Often to Use Them?" boils down to rules systems that i consider highly dysfunctional, or (to be fair) games that really don't suit my style of play. when rules increase the tension that action creates, the rules are doing their job. Sven Holmstrom's example of a crying player supports this: if the rules are doing what they should do, they'll be like the ritual drums, the candles, and the chanting.
if the rules are doing their job, then they won't screw up the whole caring-about-the-game process.
54. On 2005-06-05, Jonas Barka said:
I agree on most tabltop games getting better if you mix in some Director and Author stance (I usually do). But do you experience character immersion during these stances? As I see the meaning of the word this is by definition impossible as immersion is defined (at least by me) as experiencing and manipulating the world through your character. So if you for some reason only want to maximize immersion in your games, you should go for pure Actor.
(The stance for deep immersion should really be a fourth one as Actor stance (correct me if I'm wrong) is "interacting with the game through your character" but immersion takes "interacting with the game *as* your character" The difference is if you consider your own agenda or only that of the character. Being the character as opposed to acting the character.)
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
55. On 2005-06-06, pete_darby said:
Brendan:
Imagine a fat bald englishman doing a very bad Mr T impersonation. "Don't make me mad, sucka."
That's me right now.
Stanislavsky is constantly mis-interpreted in exactly the way Vincent is saying immersion is mistakenly protected. Even in his books, he complains about actors who get so burdened by the need to know everything about the character, the moment, all the baggage that goes around with it, that they forget the point is to perform, that immersion is a part of the process, not the start of it.
Anyway, rant off, it's a common mistake, for supporters and detractors of the method equally, to privelige and protect immersion in ways that make the experience, well, suck.
56. On 2005-06-06, Vincent said:
"Immersion is all I want out of roleplaying" is the plaint of someone unwilling to hope for better. Someone who's chosen door 1 and therefore insists that there's no door 2.
In tabletop roleplaying, casting "immersion" against "playing by rules" or "playing with dice" is as stupid as casting "immersion" against "saying what your character does instead of really doing it." Some rules, yes, prevent immersion. Other rules support it. Support it! While, furthermore, giving you an intensity of experience that simply isn't available in freeform play.
Setting immersion aside, the advantages to playing by well-designed rules are overwhelming. Universalis is fun. We've so fetishized immersion - and here by "fetishized" I don't mean "made desirable," but "made dysfunctionally desirable" - we've so fetishized immersion that we're blind to just how much fun roleplaying can be. Our fetishization of immersion makes our roleplaying barren. We don't have to trade off one fun for another.
Door 1: You immerse. When you immerse, immersion's the only kind of fun you have. When you don't immerse, it's not fun at all.
Door 2: You immerse. When you immerse, you have immersion plus other kinds of fun. When you don't immerse, it's fun anyway.
If rules needn't by principle interfere with immersion, then door 2 is open to us. Insisting that rules must always interfere with immersion is insisting that roleplaying now is as good as it can ever be. I can't accept so bleak, so heartbreaking, a pronouncement.
57. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
"we've so fetishized immersion that we're blind to just how much fun roleplaying can be. Our fetishization of immersion makes our roleplaying barren. We don't have to trade off one fun for another."
Do you really claim to univerally know what is fun?
I do not find D&D style dungeon crawling to be fun. I'm sure it's fun for other people.
I do not find hunting to be fun. I'm sure it's fun for other people.
I do not find getting hit really hard to be fun. I'm quite sure there is at least one person on earth who disagrees with me.
I have played forge style games, traditional rpg:s, immersive free from and many types of larp. I know what is fun for me and that you cannot get the same experience from immersion focused games if you add rules to them. It may still be fun and there may still be immersion, but it is different. And people have fun in different ways. My fun do nothave to be your fun.
Does it bother you that there maybe isn't a best way to play rpg:s, that it in fact depends on taste?
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
58. On 2005-06-06, Vincent said:
Jonas: "I know what is fun for me and that you cannot get the same experience from immersion focused games if you add rules to them."
I don't think you've added the right rules.
This is trivial to show. Do you spit on your fellow players when your character spits on theirs? No; you play by the general social rule that we don't spit on each other. In fact you play by a whole host of social rules that distance you from your character, always.
RPG rules are just more social rules.
If social rules like "we don't spit on each other even when our characters do" don't screw up your immersion, then social rules like "we resolve conflicts of interest using dice" needn't. To show otherwise you're going to have to somehow show that RPG rules aren't social rules. Good luck.
(If social rules like "we don't spit on each other even when our characters do" do screw up your immersion, then your immersion's too brittle to deserve the name.)
59. On 2005-06-06, Vincent said:
Cooler heads.
Okay, Jonas, here's what I want you to do. I want you to go back and read Brand's example again. The game mechanical act, Brand reaching for the dice, drove the character's plight home. The game's formal rules made her feel her character's plight more viscerally than she had.
Can you imagine having a similar experience yourself?
60. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
"(If social rules like "we don't spit on each other even when our characters do" do screw up your immersion, then your immersion's too brittle to deserve the name.)"
If you by "screw up" mean "lessen" then yes, it do lessen my immersion. You can solve it in three ways:
1. Actually do spit on the player. Potentially no immersion is lost, but if you feel to disturbet about it you could instead snap out of it completely.
2. Play games when spitting in the face is unlikely to happen, and when you get the urge to do it very briefly step out of charater (in your mind only) to react in a different way. The other players do not have to notice this. Some immersion is lost, and only to me.
3. Step out of character completely and describe the action. More immersion is lost to all who withness.
Number one is only suitable to hard core larps. Number two is sutable for most larps and certain free form tabletop. Number three could be considered the "normal" vay to handle it.
Is number three less disturbing for the immersion than rolling dice? It is for me, as the act of describing my characters actions as a pure result of his thoughts and emotions separates him from me less than if was to make a bidding war, where I had to consult my own knowledge in a much more direct way. It feels obvious to me but I cannot claim that the same applies to you. All minds do not work the same.
Can you understand my reasoning about different levels of abstraction and/or different levels of separation from the character? This works from a definition of full immersion as not being able to separate yourself from the character at all (Not desireable at all but I assure you there is no risk of this happening by accident).
How brittle the immersion is of course depends on how deep it is, so I do not understand your remark on "too brittle". I guess you have never experienced especially deep immersion if you consider out of character descriptions to not lower the level of immersion.
In my last larp (I know you do not consider larps but the same principles apply to tabletop, but on a less extreme level) i fell out of character (for maybe five seconds) when I saw a magazine lying on a table that was clearly not an inteended part of the setting. This would never have happended in a tabletop game, as I would never have entered this deep a state of immersion in the first place.
In short, social rules do not lower the level of immersion as much as mechanical rules, because of the different levels of abstraction.
"The game's formal rules made her feel her character's plight more viscerally than she had. Can you imagine having a similar experience yourself?"
Yes I can, and I have experienced this kind of feelings myself, but not in a character immersive way (the way I define immersion). As I see it she did not feel *as* the character but *for* the character. It is the same way you feel for characters in a good movie. To me this is not immersion but empathy and sympathy.
( Again I do not say rules can't be incorporated in the same game as deep immersion but not at the same time. When the rules enter the level of immersion is lowered. )
In general I see immersion as being closely tied to the stances with my proposed "Deep immersion stance" having the highest potential for immersion and Director stance the lowest. If you experience character immersion during director stance I do not think we talk about the same thing at all.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
61. On 2005-06-06, Vincent said:
Ah. Aha.
"How brittle the immersion is of course depends on how deep it is."
That's not actually true. Think about it.
What if, just imagine, what if I'm talking about your deep immersion becoming more resiliant in the face of non-immersive information? How valuable would you consider that?
62. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
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
63. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
"What if, just imagine, what if I'm talking about your deep immersion becoming more resiliant in the face of non-immersive information? How valuable would you consider that?"
That would be extremely valuable. I do not think it is possible for the type of immersion i strive to experience, but I would certainly try a game designed for that effect, and do it with an open mind.
It also depends on how you define this "non-immersive information". In the games we play, we often feel that the time spendt in low immersion "stances" makes it easier to enter deep immersion in other parts of the game. Discussing the character and his drives as a player can give you a better undertanding and better ability to immerse in him. In a larp this is part of the preparation where you design the character and maybe play a pre-larp where you play a scene as the character and then discuss what happened. Some larps use non immersive techniques in the actual game. The best game, and most immersive, used a technique where you could break the game for a monologue. The empathy gained by watching and listening to this helped in immersion in later conversations with that characters. This do not work for everyone. Some feel this obly lessen the total immersion of the game.
If this is what you mean with "non-immersive information", I guess we are close to some kind of an agreement.
Still, the non-immersive techniques is separated from the actual immersion. And I belive that using game mechanics instead of this type of "drama techniques" would not give the same effect. But as I said, I would definitely try it with an open mind.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
64. On 2005-06-06, Vincent said:
I get you. I just disagree. I don't see any good reason why using rules well-designed to support immersion would interfere with your type 1 scenes, let alone your type 2.
You're going to just have to accept that I experience the same immersion you do. I know it seems unlikely to you, but it's true.
"You know that thing where you're so into your character that you adopt her emotions, mannerisms, outlook, mood, heart and soul? It's a rush? You aren't thinking about your character, you just do what she'd do without thinking? It gives you deep insights into your character that turn out, on reflection, to be deep insights into yourself, your friends, and the world? It feels totally alien and natural at once? You crave it? That's what I mean by immersion."
Nevertheless, I'm comfortable with type 2 scenes being enormously rules-driven, with no loss to immersion at all. Furthermore, I've even seen glimpses enough of it in type 1 scenes that I think there's fruitfull design territory there. Someday, we will have games with both full, deep immersion and strong rules.
What we'll give up along the way isn't deep immersion, but our superstitions about it.
65. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
But can we not agree that this kind of rules embedded in deep immersion scenes may not work for everyone. I have a hard time undertanding how it can do so for you, but I do not doubt your word on it. Is it impossible that this kind of game would never work for me? Even if I really try it with an open mind? In the same way that some persons really do not like roleplaying at all, regardless of how you expose them to it.
My only real point during this whole discussion has always been: Combining rules and immersion is not necessarily possible for everyone.
Are you sure you cannot agree on this?
/ Jonas
66. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
And did you read my post commenting
"What if, just imagine, what if I'm talking about your deep immersion becoming more resiliant in the face of non-immersive information? How valuable would you consider that?"?
67. On 2005-06-06, Eric Provost said:
There has got to be some way to make a cheese that goes well with calamari. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
The people I eat with prefer our cheese and calamari on seperate plates.
That's fine, but I think I'd like my cheese melted over calamari. Granted, I don't have that cheese in front of me, but I believe I can make it.
I don't think you know what calamari is. In my land calamari is a dish disrupted by cheese. You cannot have cheese and calamari together. It is one or the other.
I insist that I know what calamari is, and that you and I eat the same calamari. I further insist that, while some cheeses may ruin calamari, it is possible to make a cheese that enhanses calamari.
How can you possibly assume that everyone will like cheese with their calamari? Do you know everyone's tongue?
...
Feeling cheeky today. :)
-Eric
p.s. As my wonderful gramma used to say; 'Try it, you'll like it. Shithead.'
68. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
Quite on the point, even if I would personally put my stance as: It isn't certain it's possible to make a cheese that everyone will agree goes well with calamari.
I stand by that, both for immersion and calamari. And I find it not very demanding to agree on.
69. On 2005-06-06, Eric Provost said:
I don't think that was ever debated, Jonas. I mean, of course different people like different things. I think that Vincent's point was that the blanket assumption that rules interfere with immersion is not only wrong but counterproductive to writing good system.
You may not believe that a rule can ever be made to improve immersion. You're entitled to that opinion. Some of us hold a different opinion.
-Eric
70. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
Yes it was, read it again. That was in fact my only true opinion on the matter from the start. Everything else is only examples to show that point.
I do not make a bolde claim than:
It is not sure combining rules and immersion is possible for all persons, regardless how you design the system.
That makes it a bit odd to claim that *all* (note *all*, not some) roleplayers dropping rules to enhance their immersion are stupid and do not know their own best. Vincent did in fact claim this several times.
/ Jonas
71. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
I can agree I wasn't spelling this out as many times as I should have, but you cannot deny that i wrote "Is it impossible to imagine that some people find rules and dice distracting and that they *really* couldn't have a better experience with them? Just because you do not feel that way can't you imagine another person functioning like that?" about halfway through this discussion.
/ Jonas
72. On 2005-06-06, Vincent said:
"That makes it a bit odd to claim that *all* (note *all*, not some) roleplayers dropping rules to enhance their immersion are stupid and do not know their own best. Vincent did in fact claim this several times."
That's misreading me.
I'm confident that every single roleplayer who's ever dropped rules to enhance their immersion has done so for good reasons, and has been gladder afterward. I myself dropped rules to enhance my immersion, for good reasons, and you can bet I was gladder afterward.
But I dropped crappy rules.
It wasn't the rules-ness of the rules that screwed up my immersion, I'm pretty sure. It was their crappiness.
I just think it's possible to design non-crappy games.
73. On 2005-06-06, Jonas Barka said:
And you are still misreading me :)
But maybe it's best to leave it there. I belive I dropped the rules because I immerse better with *no* rules, you belive I did it only because of bad rules. We will probaly not get any further in the discussion.
/ Jonas
74. On 2005-06-06, Vincent said:
Okay!
At least we're clear where the other stands.
75. On 2005-06-07, Eric Provost said:
I'm glad the blood has settled a bit. But I've got one more thing I've gotta say. It's been keeping me up all night. I've crawled out of bed and to my lappy to say it.
It's a damned shame.
What I'm seeing here is that someone who might just have a grand bit of insight into regular immersion isn't willing to admit that there might just be the possibility of better immersion. As if admitting that means admitting that his game sucks. Maybe that's not what's going through his head, but that's how it looks from my side of the screen.
And the shame of it is that, if he were to open up that possibility in his mind for a moment, that it's possible to improve on something good, then maybe he could share that insight with the master rules designers that reside around here. Now, maybe no rules that ever interested him would come about. Certainly is possible. But then, maybe, just maybe, a rule would come to mind, become carefully honed, and expertly implimented, that would rock his world. Open up whole new qualities and quantities of immersion. New worlds to see and lives to live.
What really boggles me is that anyone who's spent any time around here can for a moment believe that any gamer at any time can achieve a 'no rules' state of being. I don't believe that can ever happen. Not for a minute, a moment, and instant. In the deepest most intense moments of immersion, one is still locked into a complex set of rules. They just aren't there in the front of the brain. They've settled back to a comfortable spot in the subconsious, still ruling things, but being quiet and unobtrusive. If the rules we notice between moments of immersion are like commericals, then the rules we don't notice are like product placements. Sometimes we notice them, and sometimes someone has to point them out to us.
So, if we take a moment to imagine those quiet rules in the back of our head operating like a quiet little machine, guiding and forming our game, then it's not too hard to imagine the ability to rebuild that little machine in earnest, with the intention of making it take us where we'd like to go.
If the master calamari chef could acknowlege the mastery of the cheesemaker and open his mind to the possiblities, then we might all have a tasty plate that much sooner.
Sleep well all,
-Eric
76. On 2005-06-07, Jonas Barka said:
"What I'm seeing here is that someone who might just have a grand bit of insight into regular immersion isn't willing to admit that there might just be the possibility of better immersion. As if admitting that means admitting that his game sucks. Maybe that's not what's going through his head, but that's how it looks from my side of the screen."
The funny thing is I see it the other thing around. I se a person not able to admit "the possibility of better immersion. As if admitting that means admitting that his game sucks." I did not expect him to se the possibility to integrate it into his way of designing games, only that it could be another possibility for reaching immersion, equally viable.
You cannot deny that this article had a tone of "everyone who has dropped rules to enhance their immersion is not only universally wrong, but somewhat stupid".
I do not doubt that Vincents way of archieving immersion could be viable, even if it could probably never work as good for me. As long as he do not recognise the possibility (note possibility) of my way being equaly good and maybe the only thing that works for me, any creative input from me feels wasted.
This article, as written, feels much more lika an attack on the Nordic scene and the likes, than a creative proposal to get someting done.
"And the shame of it is that, if he were to open up that possibility in his mind for a moment, that it's possible to improve on something good, then maybe he could share that insight with the master rules designers that reside around here. Now, maybe no rules that ever interested him would come about. Certainly is possible. But then, maybe, just maybe, a rule would come to mind, become carefully honed, and expertly implimented, that would rock his world. Open up whole new qualities and quantities of immersion. New worlds to see and lives to live."
Yes, that could possibly happen if the master rules designer opened up a bit. I do already use rules, you know, and see their value. And what if, even if it would take lots of opening up, this master rules designer could see the value of no rules, and maybe even learn a non mechanic immersion technique or two. Yes, it's a shame.
"What really boggles me is that anyone who's spent any time around here can for a moment believe that any gamer at any time can achieve a 'no rules' state of being. I don't believe that can ever happen. Not for a minute, a moment, and instant. In the deepest most intense moments of immersion, one is still locked into a complex set of rules. They just aren't there in the front of the brain. They've settled back to a comfortable spot in the subconsious, still ruling things, but being quiet and unobtrusive. If the rules we notice between moments of immersion are like commericals, then the rules we don't notice are like product placements. Sometimes we notice them, and sometimes someone has to point them out to us."
That depends on how you see rules. If you call what actors do to do portray a good character rules, then it is ok. If you call what I do to not embarass myself at a party rules, then it is ok. If you call meditation techniques rules, then it is ok. If you call hypnosis techniques rules, then it is ok.
Othervise, no, I do really belive that rules interfere with immersion. At least for me and many person I know. You have to take my word for it.
The rules when in deep immersion (my opinion, you may differ) can be no more abstract and no less integrated in my mind than the social rules I live by every day. That's what I mean when I say "It would be as weird as rolling dice in real life." My game should be as close to real life as possible, only different. This kind of mechanical rules are not present in real life and thus should not be present in the game.
"So, if we take a moment to imagine those quiet rules in the back of our head operating like a quiet little machine, guiding and forming our game, then it's not too hard to imagine the ability to rebuild that little machine in earnest, with the intention of making it take us where we'd like to go."
Still depends, if Vincent would accept a "rules" system consisting only of thoughts and mind technique, where no part of the system is obervable to a bystander as soon as the game has started, then I'm all set. That would be a great experiment if there ever was one. For some reason I see dice, resource allocation, bidding wars and stances. Noone would be happier than me if I was wrong.
"If the master calamari chef could acknowlege the mastery of the cheesemaker and open his mind to the possiblities, then we might all have a tasty plate that much sooner."
It takes opening up from both parties. My only remaining claim, that my way of doing it could be equally good and maybe the best way for some persons and their minds, is something I'm not willing to drop. My world is based on a non-objective take on reality that can not accept a unviersal thruth like "there shure is an ideal ruleset out there, we need only find it". Why could it not be the other way? That only by dropping the rules can the game reach the next level. I do not say that is the truth, only that it's a possibility. And that is the possibiliy I personally belive in and work with.
No hard feelings from me, and I hope none from you. Even discussions where no agreement at all is reached can be valuable, at least for me. Som thought of mine have been formalised here for the first time and that will help me to get a better game.
/ Jonas
unrealitiesofmine.blogspot.com
77. On 2005-06-07, Vincent said:
Jonas, please read my new Periodic Refresher and my old How RPG Rules Work. I think you may be misunderstanding my claims badly, at every turn; maybe those two pieces will help.
RSS feed: new comments to this thread
This thread is closed to new comments.
home: anyway.
newer thread: 2005-06-06 : Happenings
older thread: 2005-05-27 : This is My Blog - Social Agenda
