The Campaign Builder's Guild

This is something of a follow-up to my previous thread about tension in "narrativist" games. Once again, I'm addressing a topic that I think the sorts of player-driven and story-driven games that I advocate (glossed rather simply and not 100% precisely as "narrativist") get something of a reputation for not doing well that I believe to be unwarranted. As before, I think they can fail at this, and there certainly isn't some "magic system" that works for all players or all genres. However, once again, there's no reason to say they necessarily have to fail just on principle. I don't think a high amount of GM authority is always necessary (or even all that relevant) when considering immersion, and, in fact, by empowering players, it can actually increase opportunities for immersion. How and why is what I'll be exploring. I'll be using FATE as well as my own Asura as the core of my examples, once again.

As always, we must start with...

Players have to be on board - As always, nothing else matters if the players don't want to go along with the game's goals, because no amount of rules of any kind are going to be able to do a bit of good. They have to want to be immersed, and have to be willing to make the effort. This is always true, but when trying to maintain immersion, it's of particular importance because...

Everyone has to understand the setting - Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the GM maintaining authority over the setting is that it helps to maintain cohesion. Players don't have to "get it" nearly as much. However, this doesn't really hold water. Players still have to be able to roleplay like they were someone that lived there, and that requires a certain level of detailed knowledge. By the time they've gotten to that level, they can probably start making stuff up. Then we can focus on...

Improvisation not regurgitation - When a character knows something but the player doesn't, there are two ways to handle it: the player either has to ask the GM, or the player can just make something up. The first case is probably necessary for key plot points and important aspects of the world, but the advantage to the "just make something up" approach is that the player can do it without really breaking character and starts to feel greater ownership in the game world. FATE even suggests spending the first session creating the city or other play environment together. Some groups may not want to take it that far, but it's definitely an interesting approach to increase "ownership" in the setting. No matter how the setting is established, make sure to...

Add to, don't rewrite - Nothing can shatter verisimilitude faster than a sense of living in a world where things are constantly changing and there is no narrative integrity. In Asura, one of the main rules of stunts is that anything declared in a stunt is henceforth true, but no stunt can override anything previously declared to be true by the GM or in a previous stunt. This means that once something exists, it exists, and new information has to be worked in around it, as opposed to weird abrupt shifts in the world. Adding new information seemingly arbitrarily isn't as big of a threat to a cohesive world as it might seem, because...

It's always up in the air - However much we may like to pretend the game setting is some sort of objective place that exists, it isn't. It's all in the minds of the group. Everyone's going to have a slightly different mental image of what is being described because there will always be "blanks" to be filled in-- and it can give everyone a greater sense of "belonging" in the setting if these blanks are filled in collaboratively rather than solely by the GM. In the end, it doesn't actually matter who is talking, because...

The source doesn't matter - Obviously, players can't be thinking in character when they're directly and overtly controlling things outside of their character. However, when one player is momentarily "taking over" and using some sort of narrative control mechanic, the other players are all still receiving description just like they were getting it from the GM, and it need not affect their ability to be in character and react to things from the standpoint of someone without any meta plot controls. Key to maintaining this separation is...

Demarcate in-character and out-of-character clearly - While it may seem more superficially immersive to speak in the first person, it tends to blur the line between player actions and character actions, and that ends up hurting immersion. Instead, characters should either speak in character as their character, perhaps going so far as to use a slightly different voice or other means of setting it apart, describe character actions in the third person (while still thinking about the character), or clearly state out of character information and actions as something not connected to the character at all. So, then, when you're sure you're out of character...

Spend meta points out of character - No matter how immersive the game tries to be, there will always be plenty of times that players simply can't be in character, because they're having to resolve game concerns. Making skill rolls, checking on rules, and doing other crunch-related activities are out of character no matter what the ruleset. By making sure most of the narrative control and meta points related mechanics seamlessly into these already out of character activities, it lets in-character time stay in-character. In general...

Mechanics shouldn't get in the way - If the system rewards 'system mastery' too much, then players will be focused on the crunchier aspects of the game rather than the storytelling aspects. If the meta points system is too intricate, then it becomes a game of resource management that can also wreck immersion. And, of course, if they have to evaluate complicated mathematical expressions, they'll be doing math instead of thinking about their characters. Keep it simple and straightforward! I like to think both FATE and Asura do this rather well, offering a decently crunchy game without being egregious. After all, the idea is...

Focus on the player characters' story but don't forget the world - The players and their actions should be moving the game and story forward, of course. However, that story is moving forward in a world, not a vacuum. Players will never have enough narrative control ability to influence everything in the world, nor should they; the players should still see the actions of their characters as the primarily tool through which they influence the world. The GM should remember this as well: While the story centers around the player characters, adding in little touches unrelated to the characters adds verisimilitude, and, if the players can find ways to bring these details into their own characters' stories, their stories become richer as well. When the world feels viable, it's easier for players to stay in their characters' mindsets.

Once again... there you have it. :yumm:

Interesting, once again.  I think that while it's possible to run a somewhat immersive game using a narrativist system, it's not the ideal system for those who value immersion over other things: in other words, while I'm sure you can run a somewhat immersive game while using a narrativist framework, it is still not the best framework for running such a game (I contend).

I do disagree on some specific points, as well, and ultimately I think that "narrativism" as classically understood is at odds on some level with immersion, for a few reasons.  A lot of the things you brought up above work in theory, but in practice I think some of them might be quite tricky to implement.  I shall explain.

Quote from: sparkletwistImprovisation not regurgitation - When a character knows something but the player doesn't, there are two ways to handle it: the player either has to ask the GM, or the player can just make something up. The first case is probably necessary for key plot points and important aspects of the world, but the advantage to the "just make something up" approach is that the player can do it without really breaking character and starts to feel greater ownership in the game world. FATE even suggests spending the first session creating the city or other play environment together. Some groups may not want to take it that far, but it's definitely an interesting approach to increase "ownership" in the setting. No matter how the setting is established, make sure to...

Add to, don't rewrite - Nothing can shatter verisimilitude faster than a sense of living in a world where things are constantly changing and there is no narrative integrity. In Asura, one of the main rules of stunts is that anything declared in a stunt is henceforth true, but no stunt can override anything previously declared to be true by the GM or in a previous stunt. This means that once something exists, it exists, and new information has to be worked in around it, as opposed to weird abrupt shifts in the world. Adding new information seemingly arbitrarily isn't as big of a threat to a cohesive world as it might seem, because...

So the goal of immersion, as I understand the term, is to create the impression that the place really exists, and that you're there - in other words, to erase (as far as possible) the separation between the player and the character, while reinforcing the illusion that the game-world exists.  Ideally speaking, the player should feel like they are their character, and that the world is a place which exists independently of them.

Let's say a player doesn't know information that the character does.  You would suggest that they might make something up, improvise on the spot, and that in doing so they take "ownership" of the game world.  But immersion isn't about ownership or world-building on the spot, it's about forgetting (insofar as is possible) that the fictional thing you're exploring is fiction - it's pretending that the world already exists, that it was all created beforehand (this is why the ideal GM in an immersion-centric game who's improvising doesn't look like he's improvising - what Vreeg would call the illusion of preparedness).  If you can add to the fiction directly, you draw attention to its fictiveness.  This might not shatter verisimilitude into a thousand irreparable pieces (especially depending on the nature of the setting), but it definitely strains it to some degree.  Furthermore, if the player doesn't know some piece of information, how can they be sure that it doesn't contradict some aspect of the setting?

I can see having players make up details as they go, but it's highly context-sensitive.

Example A (from Cadaverous Earth, since I know that setting pretty well): A player knows his character is from the city of Macelleria, but doesn't know which district he calls home, nor does he know Macellaria's districts.  He's in Skein, and meets an NPC from Macellaria who asks him which district he's from.  Now if the player is being asked to make something up, he's forced to contradict the setting's canon, because all the districts of Macellaria are already in place, mapped, and described: he doesn't know what the districts are, so how can he possibly answer without contradicting the setting's canon?  He can't, so either he magically adds another neighbourhood to Macellaria (which the GM now needs to reconcile with all the other districts and polticial factions and scavenger gangs and thief clans, and add a map for), or the GM has to step in.

Example B: A player doesn't know the name of his parent, but her character would.  It's fair, though, for her to make one up, because it's very unlikely that would violate any kind of setting canon.

So I guess I agree with you, but only on the really small/personal stuff that directly relates to the character, rather than on real "world-building" stuff.  Ultimately, any form of improvisation about the enivronment/setting is immersion-threatening.  The GM is going to have to do some of it, but it should be as invisible and unobtrusive as possible, if what he's aiming for is maximum immersion.

I do think that while collaboratively building a city/area could be really fun in some games, it sort of robs the players of part of the fun of playing (at least in my opinion) - that is, exploring a new place and not knowing what they're going to find.

Quote from: sparkletwistThe source doesn't matter - Obviously, players can't be thinking in character when they're directly and overtly controlling things outside of their character. However, when one player is momentarily "taking over" and using some sort of narrative control mechanic, the other players are all still receiving description just like they were getting it from the GM, and it need not affect their ability to be in character and react to things from the standpoint of someone without any meta plot controls. Key to maintaining this separation is...

In practice, I don't think it really works this way.  The GM is a figure of impartial authority, at least in theory; the players are not.  As players, they have other motivations (they want their characters to accomplish certain goals, for example - surely even in the most story-minded game, the players want their characters to succeed at things!).  Any narrative changes they make to a setting are almost inevitably going to be at least partially influenced by those motivations.  If those motivations become remotely visible, immersion is threatened, because suddenly the world is behaving as it suits the players rather than as it "is."  This is sort of the whole point of the GM in a game that's all about immersion: they're the prepared one, the one who's thought through the nuances of the world, who can construct things beforehand so that they seem realistic.  Improvisation has to happen pretty quickly, and it can be challenging to come up with something that feels "authentic" quickly.  If things that don't quite fit or don't quite seem believable can be thought up and inserted by players ad-hoc, verisimilitude is threatened.  This isn't to say that players are inherently inferior to GMs at making stuff up: it's just that the GM has lots of time in advance to prepare these things.  Yes, the GM has to improvise, too, but they've had a long time to familiarize themselves with all aspects of the setting, to prepare it carefully - they have a ton of knowledge the players do not.

Quote from: sparkletwistDemarcate in-character and out-of-character clearly - While it may seem more superficially immersive to speak in the first person, it tends to blur the line between player actions and character actions, and that ends up hurting immersion. Instead, characters should either speak in character as their character, perhaps going so far as to use a slightly different voice or other means of setting it apart, describe character actions in the third person (while still thinking about the character), or clearly state out of character information and actions as something not connected to the character at all. So, then, when you're sure you're out of character...

This can also be tricky, I think.  Immersion is about breaking down the boundaries between reality and fiction, to make the fictional seem real, i.e. verisimilar, having the appearance/likeness of truth.  When you stress the boundary beweetn reality and fiction so much, you're constantly reminding the players of that boundary: you're entrenching that boundary, you're making it harder for that boundary to dissolve.  The platonic, absolutely ideal immersive game would be almost entirely "in character" - there would be almost no out of character discussion at all, the only OOC discussion being about rules.  Now, I'm not saying that kind of game is the most fun, but it would be the most immersive.  Personally I think that out of character chatter is part of the fun of a roleplaying game, but I would also say that such chatter does, to some degree, undermine immersion.

Quote from: sparkletwistFocus on the player characters' story - The players and their actions should be moving the game forward. The players should still see the actions of their characters as the primarily tool through which they influence the world, not any sort of narrative control they have. That's just the icing on the cake. The GM should also remember that the game should center around the players, of course. In this way, everyone can really feel like the game centers on the characters, and the players can stay in their characters' mindsets.

See, no - I disagree here, and I think this goes to the heart of the issue.  What you're describing is what a "narrativist" game does - focus on the players' characters' stories, above all.  But a game that's striving for the utmost immersion isn't "centered" on the characters per se.  It's about them insofar as, well, they're the characters and we see the world through their eyes, but they should feel that the world doesn't turn around them, but that it exists independently of them - their characters are a part of the world, yes, but only a part.  It existed before them and it will exist if the characters die, and there are parts of the world the characters will never see.

Again, I don't think it's impossible to have a level of immersion in a narrativist game.  Some of the pointers you described above are good means of mitigating the threat that narrativist mechanics pose to immersion, but they're not a means of establishing or reinforcing that immersion.

I also wouldn't say that immersion > narrativism or anything like that, or that a hyper-immersive game is more inherently fun than one with less immersion - that's going to be totally taste dependent.

I tend to run very immersive games, and in my experience I mostly agree with Steerpike, without getting much into individual points since it was a long topic.

QuoteIn practice, I don't think it really works this way.  The GM is a figure of impartial authority, at least in theory; the players are not.  As players, they have other motivations (they want their characters to accomplish certain goals, for example - surely even in the most story-minded game, the players want their characters to succeed at things!).  Any narrative changes they make to a setting are almost inevitably going to be at least partially influenced by those motivations.  If those motivations become remotely visible, immersion is threatened, because suddenly the world is behaving as it suits the players rather than as it "is."  This is sort of the whole point of the GM in a game that's all about immersion: they're the prepared one, the one who's thought through the nuances of the world, who can construct things beforehand so that they seem realistic.  Improvisation has to happen pretty quickly, and it can be challenging to come up with something that feels "authentic" quickly.  If things that don't quite fit or don't quite seem believable can be thought up and inserted by players ad-hoc, verisimilitude is threatened.  This isn't to say that players are inherently inferior to GMs at making stuff up: it's just that the GM has lots of time in advance to prepare these things.  Yes, the GM has to improvise, too, but they've had a long time to familiarize themselves with all aspects of the setting, to prepare it carefully - they have a ton of knowledge the players do not.

I have had some success on a related tangent: allowing one player to run an NPC in a scene where his character doesn't have a roll. For example, to play a bartender with non-plot critical information, or in one case, a character's ex girlfriend who was championing a particular sports team against another PC. It allowed us to pursue multiple separate PCs stories at once in a way that was pretty interesting, but I don't it really broke immersion.

Quote from: SteerpikeSo the goal of immersion, as I understand the term, is to create the impression that the place really exists, and that you're there - in other words, to erase (as far as possible) the separation between the player and the character, while reinforcing the illusion that the game-world exists.  Ideally speaking, the player should feel like they are their character, and that the world is a place which exists independently of them.

I don't have any huge problems with this definition. For me, immersion is about being able to speak and respond in character, think through what the character does, and in general think like the character. I guess you could also call it "method acting," but the point is, when I'm in the character's mindset, like this, naturally, the character "feels real" and then the environment around the character starts to take life as well-- "seeing it through their eyes," as it were. Still, since it's all built around the character, it might not be surprising that my take on immersion is more character-driven (and story-of-that-character-driven) than yours, and that might create some different feelings in how we do things and how much viability we see in different practices. (Influenced, of course, by our own likes and biases in game systems, too!)

Quote from: SteerpikeBut immersion isn't about ownership or world-building on the spot, it's about forgetting (insofar as is possible) that the fictional thing you're exploring is fiction - it's pretending that the world already exists

Well, yes. But the "reality" is significantly less objective in a game than real reality, and I think we kind of have to acknowledge that and get on board with it rather than straining against it. Yes, we want to pretend like the world is real, but... what better way to feel like something already exists than just knowing something that you just know? Rather than having to break character and ask the GM about it.

I mean, you're right that if it looks like improvising then that's going to call attention to the idea that it's fiction-- but being able to add to the game's setting fluidly in a way that doesn't just look like off-the-cuff improvisation (and fall apart under closer examination) is something everyone at the table gets better at as they learn about the setting. That's why it's so important-- and hence, it got a point in the list-- that everyone have a solid grounding in the setting. If players are going to improvise, they should have the "illusion of actually speaking truth." (I will concede that in a super-duper-detailed setting, this might work a little less well just due to the weight of "stuff that has already been created")

Quote from: SteerpikeNow if the player is being asked to make something up, he's forced to contradict the setting's canon, because all the districts of Macellaria are already in place, mapped, and described: he doesn't know what the districts are, so how can he possibly answer without contradicting the setting's canon?

Well, I did make an exception for "important aspects of the world," which Macellaria's geography may well be. On the other hand, maybe the name the player gives is just a nickname, more common name, old name, or whatever for one of the existing districts-- or the actual name for one of the pre-existing districts in the "instance" of the CE that particular game takes place in.

Quote from: SteerpikeUltimately, any form of improvisation about the enivronment/setting is immersion-threatening.

Due to the way the world is being filtered through prose (as opposed to five senses) and the whole "it's not really objective" aspect to the world, I don't agree with this. My point about "It's always up in the air" is designed to address this.

Quote from: SteerpikeIn practice, I don't think it really works this way.  The GM is a figure of impartial authority, at least in theory; the players are not.

Ok, I see what you're saying. However, I don't agree that the GM is a figure of impartial authority. Like, I understand that's the theory, but, really, we know it doesn't actually work like that. In my mind, it doesn't matter which of the subjective human beings at the table the material comes from. You're correct that stuff coming from the players is more likely to benefit the players-- but stuff will benefit the players anyway. It's still their story and we're still playing a character-driven "narrativist" game. We're just trying to feel like it's taking place in a "real" world we can feel like we're seeing through their eyes.

Quote from: SteerpikeImprovisation has to happen pretty quickly, and it can be challenging to come up with something that feels "authentic" quickly.  If things that don't quite fit or don't quite seem believable can be thought up and inserted by players ad-hoc, verisimilitude is threatened.  This isn't to say that players are inherently inferior to GMs at making stuff up: it's just that the GM has lots of time in advance to prepare these things.  Yes, the GM has to improvise, too, but they've had a long time to familiarize themselves with all aspects of the setting, to prepare it carefully - they have a ton of knowledge the players do not.

True. This can happen if the GM makes up something on the spot that isn't good, too. I'll agree this may be less likely to happen due to the GM's greater knowledge, but then again, the GM has a lot more to think and worry about, too. The player may be thinking about some specific aspect of the world that the character is interacting with (not having to care about the bigger details) and as such could come up with a pretty good answer.

Quote from: SteerpikeImmersion is about breaking down the boundaries between reality and fiction, to make the fictional seem real, i.e. verisimilar, having the appearance/likeness of truth.  When you stress the boundary beweetn reality and fiction so much, you're constantly reminding the players of that boundary: you're entrenching that boundary, you're making it harder for that boundary to dissolve.

This might be one major area where our definitions of "immersion" diverge. I understand what you're saying, but, as I've mentioned, it's much more to me about thinking/acting/talking in character, and in the general sense of "being there." As such, to me it's useful to stress the boundary, because it makes it clear which side of it you're on at all times. When I'm describing what my character does, I'm thinking of the world from her perspective and saying and doing what she'd say. I'm "immersed" in that moment. Out of character banter is on the other side of the hard line, and by making it a deliberate thing to step from one to the other, it hopefully encourages more time spent on the in-character side.

Quote from: SteerpikeWhat you're describing is what a "narrativist" game does - focus on the players' characters' stories, above all.  But a game that's striving for the utmost immersion isn't "centered" on the characters per se.  It's about them insofar as, well, they're the characters and we see the world through their eyes, but they should feel that the world doesn't turn around them, but that it exists independently of them - their characters are a part of the world, yes, but only a part.

This is a good point. I was getting kind of tired by the time I scrawled out the last item on the list this kind of escaped me. I'll update the list because this is a good thought.

Quote from: SteerpikeSome of the pointers you described above are good means of mitigating the threat that narrativist mechanics pose to immersion, but they're not a means of establishing or reinforcing that immersion.

Well, I don't agree with that, but that's what my whole post has been about. :grin:

I think you're quite right that our definitions/conceptions of immersion differ, and I think that's where our disagreement basically lies.

Quote from: sparkletwistWell, yes. But the "reality" is significantly less objective in a game than real reality, and I think we kind of have to acknowledge that and get on board with it rather than straining against it. Yes, we want to pretend like the world is real, but... what better way to feel like something already exists than just knowing something that you just know? Rather than having to break character and ask the GM about it.

I'll concede this, on minor/personal matters for characters, or, as you put it, details that aren't important aspects of the world - but I don't think this is really "narrativism," per se, it's more just the regular improvisation that playing a character requires.

I still think that in a game stressing immersion, you want as little improvisation as possible, because improvising calls attention to the fact that the world is being created, rather than already existing.

Quote from: sparkletwistWell, yes. But the "reality" is significantly less objective in a game than real reality, and I think we kind of have to acknowledge that and get on board with it rather than straining against it.

I think this is fundamentally where we disagree.  I see that straining as immersion.  Here's how wikipedia defines immersion in the context of games/video games:

"Immersion into virtual reality is a metaphoric use of the experience of submersion into water applied to representation, fiction or simulation. Immersion can also be defined as the state of consciousness where a visitor or immersant's awareness of physical self is transformed by being surrounded in an engrossing environment; often artificial, creating a perception of Presence in a non-physical world. The term is widely used for describing partial or complete suspension of disbelief enabling action or reaction to stimulations encountered in a virtual or artistic environment. The degree to which the virtual or artistic environment faithfully reproduces reality determines the degree of suspension of disbelief. The greater the suspension of disbelief, the greater the degree of Presence achieved."

This is the kind of immersion I'm talking about - it's not just about being able to roleplay effectively or speak as if in character, it's about suspending disbelief as a player.  Like, in live theater (or, for that matter, TV or film), it's about forgetting that the actors are actors (or at least pushing that fact to the back of our minds) and accepting that they're the people they're pretending to be, in the place they're pretending to be.  On some level I'm always aware that they're actors on a stage, but if I'm engrossed enough (immersed) in the action of the play/film, I'm able to relate to it in a way that I couldn't if the fact that it was fiction was at the forefront of my mind.  So, for example, in order to feel scared at a horror movie, or to feel sad at a tragic play, I need to be immersed to some degree, to suspend my disbelief, to sort-of-kinda-forget that the fiction is fiction.  Things that draw my attention to the fictiveness of the experience threaten that suspension.

Quote from: sparkletwistOk, I see what you're saying. However, I don't agree that the GM is a figure of impartial authority. Like, I understand that's the theory, but, really, we know it doesn't actually work like that.

I'll agree that the GM is never purely a figure of impartial authority, but I'd suggest that nonetheless his/her position allows him/her to appear impartial moreso than players.  In an immersion-centric game the GM's chief goal is going to be to present the setting in such a way that it apepars believable, not to help the players accomplish their goals.  If you're asking players to do that as well as the GM, you're forcing them to think on two levels they constantly have to switch between: the motivations of their character on the one hand, and making the world seem "real" on the other.  It's hard to imagine this constant back-and-forth between acting in-character and out-of-character (and serving different motivations in each mode) could help someone get into a character's mindset.

Quote from: sparkletwistIn my mind, it doesn't matter which of the subjective human beings at the table the material comes from.

Fair enough!  In mine though, it does.  When I look at a GM in a game, I think "here is the arbiter of the world: he/she describes the setting."  When I look at a player I think of their character and goals (well, if they're roleplaying well I do), so if they start describing an aspect of the setting/environment, I'd be inclined to start wondering how their world-building decisions might be intertwining with their character motivations.  Maybe this is just one of those things that's been drilled into me through hours and hours of roleplaying a certain way; I'm not sure.

The best way to immerse players into a setting is to let them create it together. The future GM has as much input as everyone else, but no more; once they're all done (s)he takes over. People remember their own creations best, and the world will seem all the more alive because they have genuine and personal (albeit OOC) memories of the world they are about to explore.

EDIT: People acquire an immense repository of miscellaneous information over the course of their lives, and the aforementioned creative process simulates that. Here, genuine knowledge and simulated ignorance (possessing greater knowledge than your character and suppressing it for the sake of immersion) is better than genuine ignorance and simulated knowledge (knowing less than your character and petitioning the GM mid-game for information).

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: sparkletwist
Ok, I see what you're saying. However, I don't agree that the GM is a figure of impartial authority. Like, I understand that's the theory, but, really, we know it doesn't actually work like that.

I'll agree that the GM is never purely a figure of impartial authority, but I'd suggest that nonetheless his/her position allows him/her to appear impartial moreso than players.  In an immersion-centric game the GM's chief goal is going to be to present the setting in such a way that it apepars believable, not to help the players accomplish their goals.  If you're asking players to do that as well as the GM, you're forcing them to think on two levels they constantly have to switch between: the motivations of their character on the one hand, and making the world seem "real" on the other.  It's hard to imagine this constant back-and-forth between acting in-character and out-of-character (and serving different motivations in each mode) could help someone get into a character's mindset.

I think this is a good debate to be had, though it has been discussed, and as Steerpike mentioned earlier, that a shared narrative mode is classically considered somewhat at odds with immersion.
And I am not saying that this is anything but a continuum, since Immersion is never a complete state, the real goal, when we define systems and gamestyles to create it, is to enable a deeper immersion, never to pretend it is complete.

Similarly, no human being adjudicate a rules set (and adjudication what is happening) will be perfectly correct (though they can be perfectly impartial).  However, immersion is aided tremendously by the ability of the players to be able to trust in the GM in his role as 'playing the rest of the world'.  Maintaining the critical, 'view and agency from within' position tremendously adds to the immersion of a game.  The world exists, and the PCs try to act and react to it from a mindset more similar to how we act from within our own selves in the real world, just with more steps in between.  Because while no immersion is close to perfect and that these steps of asking what I see is different than actually seeing, it is still a related, familiar mindset; whereas, while in the gameplay phase of the game (not when working ooc), being able to create what you see and hear and feel is not.  It's not how we actually function.  
I consider the 'illusion of preparedness' to be related and a very important component of the immersive process. It is the idea that the PCs can't see how much and what the GM has prepared and therefor a good GM never lets them know when they slide into a less or more prepared area and the setting appears more real to them.  because in this way, it appears to exist with or without them.  As soon as this illusion is marred, or as soon as the PCs step from the role of experiencing the setting into a position where they can see behind the backdrop, the potential immersed position is reduced.

Again, this is an opinion, And I want to make it clear that I used the idea of a continuum of immersion, not an absolute.  But on the other end of the continuum, the un-immersed position, I see as the 'metagamed' position, the opposite of seeing purely from the inside is to be seeing purely from the outside.  So in my view, from a very simple level, what I am describing above i8s simple; the shared narrative view is an outside view.  So it is simply moving that game further down the continuum.  It does not remove the potential to immerse, but it lessens it.

I think this goes back to what a game does well and not as well.  Not to mention the players and melding it to their preference.  Immersion is an important part of an RP, but it is not the only one.  Some people really like the cooperative mode of gameplay; they get jazzed by creating something together and the sum of that shared creation is a tremendous motivator and gives a lot of satisfaction that can make a game very successful. 

I also touched on the term OOC earlier.  I believe that there are two main phases in playing an RPG, though there are places in between them, to be honest.  One is the IC position, and that is where I see narrative control to be most disruptive.  But when the GM and players are talking, and are more OOC, I see a level of shared narration much less of an issue.   It goes back to the earlier example of a PC's parent's name, if this is worked on during an OOC phase, it's really not very disruptive to the immersion.   

Quote from: SteerpikeI still think that in a game stressing immersion, you want as little improvisation as possible, because improvising calls attention to the fact that the world is being created, rather than already existing.

The whole act of playing the game calls attention to the fact that the world is being created rather than already existing. Perhaps it's just a simple matter of our priorities differing, but compared to that, a little improvisation here and there feels like nothing major. (The different feeling might be because of what I've discussed immediately below!)

Quote from: SteerpikeI need to be immersed to some degree, to suspend my disbelief, to sort-of-kinda-forget that the fiction is fiction.  Things that draw my attention to the fictiveness of the experience threaten that suspension.

I think I see the real substance of our disagreement. I agree with what you're saying actually! (And with the Wikipedia definition, at least to the extent that I could parse that word salad...)

However, in something where the participants are actually writing the story as they go (instead of a movie or play or whatever where it's just playing out) I think part of the suspension of disbelief has to include suspending the disbelief in the spontaneous creation of the fiction as well. In other words, in something like an RPG where you're making it up as you go along anyway, sort-of-kinda-forgetting about the fiction being fiction means sort-of-kinda-forgetting that this "scientific fact about the properties of Unobtanium Ore" my character stated is something I just made up 10 seconds ago. It seems sort of essential to stretch suspension of disbelief to cover "things I just made up" when trying to combine any sort of narrative control with immersion. Or, for that matter, even when you're not-- because however much preparation or whatever the GM pretends to have, eventually someone's going to notice something that doesn't quite add up and disbelief will have to be suspended. So, really, I prefer to think of it more like as long as what you've said meshes with the existing setting material, then it's fine, regardless of whether it was made up 10 seconds ago or written in stone since the beginning. I mean, if you're thinking too much about which it is, then you need to get back into the "immersed" mindset!

Quote from: SteerpikeIn an immersion-centric game the GM's chief goal is going to be to present the setting in such a way that it apepars believable, not to help the players accomplish their goals.  If you're asking players to do that as well as the GM, you're forcing them to think on two levels they constantly have to switch between: the motivations of their character on the one hand, and making the world seem "real" on the other.

In an immersion-centric "narrativist" game the GM will have two goals: both presenting the setting in a way that appears believable as well as helping (or working against) the players accomplish their goals. The GM is trying to create a world (because we care about immersion), but also trying to facilitate the players' storytelling (because we care about narrative) and meanwhile, yes, the players are just thinking about their goals.

However, "thinking about their goals" doesn't mean they're always working towards their goals. Instead, they are sometimes working against their goals, if they're playing out one of their character's flaws. Meta point systems (like FATE's fate points, Asura's stunt points, etc.) tend to award meta points for characters doing things against their best interests that the character would reasonably and realistically do (or having things happen to that character, to move things a little further into the realm of overt narrative control) so players will be thinking of this stuff often. While players working both for and against their characters (to feed the meta point economy) won't exactly be like players helping to create a "real" world on the other, it'll come a lot closer than them solely working for their own interests all the time, and can result in both more realistic characters and a more realistic world.

For example, the character (or rather, the player, thinking like the character would) thinks, "X is likely to happen here, but it would be kinda bad for me if X happened." The player pops out of character for a moment, says, "Hey, how about a compel for X?" The GM grins evilly, slides over a meta point, and then the player pops back into character, and says, "Oh, crap." Yes, there's a certain switching back and forth, here, but the act of thinking up this addition to the world was brought about by the character's own thoughts and motivations. The act of inserting it was done by a quick and hopefully unintrusive switch out of character for a moment, and then, the player proceeded to react to it in character.

Quote from: SteerpikeI'd be inclined to start wondering how their world-building decisions might be intertwining with their character motivations.

Well, yes, but you're still presuming a degree of objectivity on the part of the GM that I'm not. The GM's world-building decisions are probably intertwining with their own ideas for how the story should proceed and things they've deliberately inserted to help or hinder the characters and create interesting plot hooks, anyway. I'd say this is true in any game, but will be especially true if the game is "narrativist."

If the GM just creates a totally detached and pseudo-objective environment (like, basically a "sandbox") and sits back and tries to be completely impartial, if the player characters' motivations and actions are incompatible in any way whatsoever, one of three things will happen:
- They will continue along these paths, the party will go off in multiple irreconcilable directions, and the game will fall apart.
- Players will have to solve the problem amongst themselves with metagamey solutions, which breaks immersion for sure.
- The GM will eventually have to exert a little bit of non-objective narrative influence and push them in the right direction.

Too much of the third thing is railroading but every GM can and should do it a little to ensure that the game can function. "Narrativist" GMs a little more, I think.

So, basically, nobody's really all that objective and everyone's got their own goals. Meshing everyone's goals (using the game's meta points as the "currency" to "negotiate") into a single, cohesive narrative is part of the fun.

Quote from: LordVreega shared narrative mode is classically considered somewhat at odds with immersion

I'm not sure if it's "classically" considered such but I'll definitely give you that it's a fairly common opinion that the two of them form a sort of dichotomy. However, that's the entire thing my original post is designed to address. The points you make are pretty much all already addressed in that post.

I think a video-game/CRPG example might help to illustrate how I see immersion functioning.  I love both of these games to pieces, but I think they play with things like immersion, narrativism, gameism etc to different degrees.

Immersion-Centric: Skyrim.  The world looks as realistic graphically as possible; NPCs have routines, do chores, tan leather, run shops, tend fields, and forge weapons; every nook and cranny of the world is accessible; the "story" presents a plethora of choices and it's up to me to decide which to take; my character is an empty shell that I fully inhabit; every haunch of meat, carrot, turnip, arrow, and plate can be picked up; I can hunt game, cook that game, and then eat it; I can pick up books and read them; I can catch diseases; if I'm not careful as I climb a mountainside and take a wrong step, I will fall to my death.  In short, the world feels incredibly real.  My choices impact it, but it exists apart from me.  As I travel through the game-world other characters (merchants, pilgrims, soldiers, prisoners) are travelling as well.  Even though I'm "Dragonborn," the focus isn't really on me, it's on the world I'm moving through.

Narrativist but with Levels of Immersion: Mass Effect.  The world is sprawling and mostly open, but there are areas I can't go because they're not important to the story - I can't explore the entire Citadel, I can't land on a random planet and just wander its cities.  Random, mundane objects can't be picked up.  NPCs are there to be talked to/interacted with - they don't have (visible) lives beyond the needs of the story.  With some major exceptions, I will rarely revisit a place more than once.  Shepherd is a larger-than-life character with a distinct personality of his/her own into which I project myself.  Drama is extremely high, and I relate to the characters very strongly; dialogue is rich, and my interpretation of the character directly affects the story.  Still, my choice of allegiances is ultimately fairly limited.  When I say that Mass Effect is, in a sense, "narrativist," what I mean is that it's priviledging story: the story, characters, drama, etc are what's important to the game, the most important thing.  Realism/immersion is a secondary concern.  The world-building and environments are great, however, and the wealth of lore adds to the feeling that the Mass Effect galaxy exists.

Quote from: sparkletwistThe whole act of playing the game calls attention to the fact that the world is being created rather than already existing.

And in a play, you're just sitting in a playhouse watching people talk on stage.  In a movie theatre, you're sitting in dark looking at a gian black screen.  In a video game you're sitting in front of a computer.  As I see it, immersion is about those aspects of the experience fading into the background.

Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, in something where the participants are actually writing the story as they go (instead of a movie or play or whatever where it's just playing out) I think part of the suspension of disbelief has to include suspending the disbelief in the spontaneous creation of the fiction as well. In other words, in something like an RPG where you're making it up as you go along anyway, sort-of-kinda-forgetting about the fiction being fiction means sort-of-kinda-forgetting that this "scientific fact about the properties of Unobtanium Ore" my character stated is something I just made up 10 seconds ago. It seems sort of essential to stretch suspension of disbelief to cover "things I just made up" when trying to combine any sort of narrative control with immersion. Or, for that matter, even when you're not-- because however much preparation or whatever the GM pretends to have, eventually someone's going to notice something that doesn't quite add up and disbelief will have to be suspended. So, really, I prefer to think of it more like as long as what you've said meshes with the existing setting material, then it's fine, regardless of whether it was made up 10 seconds ago or written in stone since the beginning. I mean, if you're thinking too much about which it is, then you need to get back into the "immersed" mindset!

I can see your point here, but I'd make a distinction between character actions and the exterior world.  Yes, eventually someone is going to notice something that doesn't add up, but that's when suspension of disbelief is threatened.  It's the GM's job, in an immersion-centric game, to minimize those moments.  How can I buy into the idea that the world exists independent of me if I'm helping to make it up on the spot?  By definition, that act of creativity hammers home the fact that the world isn't independent on me.  In fact, it's dependent on me.  The world may always have been dependent on me in actuality (it exists in my head, after all!).  Immersion is about forgetting that.

Quote from: sparkletwistFor example, the character (or rather, the player, thinking like the character would) thinks, "X is likely to happen here, but it would be kinda bad for me if X happened." The player pops out of character for a moment, says, "Hey, how about a compel for X?" The GM grins evilly, slides over a meta point, and then the player pops back into character, and says, "Oh, crap." Yes, there's a certain switching back and forth, here, but the act of thinking up this addition to the world was brought about by the character's own thoughts and motivations. The act of inserting it was done by a quick and hopefully unintrusive switch out of character for a moment, and then, the player proceeded to react to it in character.

I think this is a lot harder than it sounds; immersion is like a spell, a trance, and once it's broken it's harder to slip back in, I think, than you depict here.  I also think we're sort of talking at cross-purposes a bit.  You're talking primarily about how narratvism can help roleplaying and engaging with a character; I'm talking about making a world/setting believable and real-seeming.

Quote from: sparkletwistWell, yes, but you're still presuming a degree of objectivity on the part of the GM that I'm not. The GM's world-building decisions are probably intertwining with their own ideas for how the story should proceed and things they've deliberately inserted to help or hinder the characters and create interesting plot hooks, anyway. I'd say this is true in any game, but will be especially true if the game is "narrativist."

I get you here, and I'm nto sure a "totally" immersive game - the "perfect" sandbox - would be that fun, at the end of the day.  There are levels of this kind of thing.  All I'm saying is that the more the GM makes their own objectives visible, the more they favour a narrativist strategy, the more immersion is threatened/undermined.  You need a balance of these things.

Quote from: sparkletwistThe GM will eventually have to exert a little bit of non-objective narrative influence and push them in the right direction.

The key word here is "a little bit."  Ideally, this kind of nudge is so artfully done that it seems invisible and seamless.  Narrativism tends to put it out in the open.  That's totally fine, but it's not terribly immersive.

Quote from: sparkletwistHowever, that's the entire thing my original post is designed to address. The points you make are pretty much all already addressed in that post.

Right but you said that:

Quote from: sparkletwistI don't think a high amount of GM authority is always necessary (or even all that relevant) when considering immersion, and, in fact, by empowering players, it can actually increase opportunities for immersion.

I interpreted this as a claim that a narrativist system stressing player empowerment is better for immersion.  My post was basically a disagreement with this idea.  I think you can have a narrativist game with levels of immersion, but I don't think narrativism actually helps immersion, or that narrativism is "better" at immersion than a simulationist system; it can hinder it and undermine it, and while those effects can be mitigated, I don't think meta points or player empowerment - all of which help to call attention to the fictiveness of the setting, pull players out of character, pull players out of the world, make a distinction between themselves and the player, remind the player that the world is being improvised or created spontaneously - help to create immersion.

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: Steerpike
I need to be immersed to some degree, to suspend my disbelief, to sort-of-kinda-forget that the fiction is fiction.  Things that draw my attention to the fictiveness of the experience threaten that suspension.

I think I see the real substance of our disagreement. I agree with what you're saying actually! (And with the Wikipedia definition, at least to the extent that I could parse that word salad...)

However, in something where the participants are actually writing the story as they go (instead of a movie or play or whatever where it's just playing out) I think part of the suspension of disbelief has to include suspending the disbelief in the spontaneous creation of the fiction as well. In other words, in something like an RPG where you're making it up as you go along anyway, sort-of-kinda-forgetting about the fiction being fiction means sort-of-kinda-forgetting that this "scientific fact about the properties of Unobtanium Ore" my character stated is something I just made up 10 seconds ago. It seems sort of essential to stretch suspension of disbelief to cover "things I just made up" when trying to combine any sort of narrative control with immersion. Or, for that matter, even when you're not-- because however much preparation or whatever the GM pretends to have, eventually someone's going to notice something that doesn't quite add up and disbelief will have to be suspended. So, really, I prefer to think of it more like as long as what you've said meshes with the existing setting material, then it's fine, regardless of whether it was made up 10 seconds ago or written in stone since the beginning. I mean, if you're thinking too much about which it is, then you need to get back into the "immersed" mindset!

Making it up as you go anyways? As long as that's the mindset of the players, that will stretch anyone past the idea that the world has any sort of internal consistency, yes.  See, when you say that the PCs have to include suspending disbelief in the spontaneous creation of the setting (which has to happen in the game, rarely, even in the middle of a carefully written adventure, someone will do something that has not been covered), I think you are completely correct.
But the less they need to do this, the less of they are pulled away from the immersed position.

Quote from: Sparkletwist.Well, yes, but you're still presuming a degree of objectivity on the part of the GM that I'm not.

This is one I have trouble with.  And I mean this completely honestly, I was brought into this game and taught the art of GMing in a way that the players and GM play together, not in any sort of opposition, and part of the role of the GM is to prepare and present from as logical and objective a position as possible.   I don't pretend for a heartbeat that any GM can be perfectly objective all the time, but one of the reasons I always did so much prep and had so many notes and so much detail done is that I always want every chance to know, and my players to know, that this is what was prepared and designed beforehand, often before I had any clear idea who I'd be playing with.  Its why I spend time creating so much ahead of time.  The less the hand of the GM can be seen as anything but playing his part as the way the setting reacts and is perceived by the players, the more the setting seems to exist for itself as itself, and the more immersion is deepened.

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: LordVreeg
a shared narrative mode is classically considered somewhat at odds with immersion

I'm not sure if it's "classically" considered such but I'll definitely give you that it's a fairly common opinion that the two of them form a sort of dichotomy. However, that's the entire thing my original post is designed to address. The points you make are pretty much all already addressed in that post.

And one should merely pause and appreciate the fact you are make the attempt.

Quote from: SteerpikeI think a video-game/CRPG example might help to illustrate how I see immersion functioning.

I get what you're saying, sort of, but it's hard for me to be on board with this because they're both video games and those work rather differently in structure and execution to a tabletop RPG. In addition, I've played Mass Effect but I haven't ever actually played Skyrim so it's hard for me to draw a contrast.

Quote from: SteerpikeAnd in a play, you're just sitting in a playhouse watching people talk on stage.  In a movie theatre, you're sitting in dark looking at a gian black screen.  In a video game you're sitting in front of a computer.  As I see it, immersion is about those aspects of the experience fading into the background.

Yes, totally! That's actually my point. Once you've gotten over this huge obstacle, the whole the fictional thing that I'm experiencing is fiction thing, the rest of it is minor by comparison. (Like, if you're watching a play, are you going to be abruptly and disappointingly pulled out of your immersion in it if one of the actors improvises a line? Maybe if they do it badly... but the whole point of my original post is saying "here are my suggestions on how to not do it badly")

Quote from: SteerpikeHow can I buy into the idea that the world exists independent of me if I'm helping to make it up on the spot?  By definition, that act of creativity hammers home the fact that the world isn't independent on me.  In fact, it's dependent on me.  The world may always have been dependent on me in actuality (it exists in my head, after all!).  Immersion is about forgetting that.

Quote from: LordVreegSee, when you say that the PCs have to include suspending disbelief in the spontaneous creation of the setting (which has to happen in the game, rarely, even in the middle of a carefully written adventure, someone will do something that has not been covered), I think you are completely correct.
But the less they need to do this, the less of they are pulled away from the immersed position.

Ok. I get what you're both saying. However, I posit that if you're thinking about it this much, though, you're already starting to slip out of an immersed mindset, and the battle is already close to being lost. Like, if you want to forget that the world is dependent on you (and it is) then don't dwell on it! Make something up on the spot, and then get back into character and put out of your mind that you just did that-- the same way that you would (and would have to) put it out of your mind that you noticed the GM just making something up on the spot even if any player narrative controls didn't exist. That's also why I say the source doesn't matter: for anyone but the player who is making stuff up, it's all still just "external input," and if you overthink the source, you're overthinking and sabotaging your own immersion again.

What I'm saying, essentially, is that if immersion is the goal, be immersed, and stop worrying about things that just pull you out of immersion, because all doing that will do, in any game is... pull you out of immersion.

(In some ways, this is like the old joke where someone is going to the doctor and saying "Doctor, it hurts when I do this!" and the doctor replies "Then don't do that." However, for certain subsets of "doing that," namely, ones that invite trouble for no gain, it's a perfectly reasonable response.)

Quote from: SteerpikeI also think we're sort of talking at cross-purposes a bit.  You're talking primarily about how narratvism can help roleplaying and engaging with a character; I'm talking about making a world/setting believable and real-seeming.

Maybe. I did mention (and I still believe!) that my take on immersion is more character-driven-- in my view of immersion, a believable and real-seeming world begins (and, in some ways, ends, at least for me) with a world that I'm able to plausibly and disbelief-suspendedly (how's that for a word) experience through the perspective of my character. That's why collaborative creation isn't actually a big deal to me. It's like what Theopteryx pointed out: I can feel a sense of "actually remembering" and "actually knowing" these things in the world that my character knows, and I contend that helps with immersion much more than being spoon-fed by the GM, even if it is more "objective" that way.

Quote from: SteerpikeAll I'm saying is that the more the GM makes their own objectives visible, the more they favour a narrativist strategy, the more immersion is threatened/undermined.

How are the GM's objectives visible? Because something is there that doesn't seem like a plausible part of the world and is just a plot hook? If that's the case, I think the "doesn't seem plausible" is the real problem-- why can't a plot hook be a plausible part of the world? Balancing story-driven games and plausible worlds is a challenge, I will admit, but I think that it's just overthinking (as I commented on above) if every single time something that seems like a good plot hook comes along it is automatically dismissed because it's "too convenient."

Quote from: SteerpikeI think you can have a narrativist game with levels of immersion, but I don't think narrativism actually helps immersion, or that narrativism is "better" at immersion than a simulationist system; it can hinder it and undermine it, and while those effects can be mitigated, I don't think meta points or player empowerment - all of which help to call attention to the fictiveness of the setting, pull players out of character, pull players out of the world, make a distinction between themselves and the player, remind the player that the world is being improvised or created spontaneously - help to create immersion.

I don't think it's better, either. Like I said way up there, there is no "magic system," and different things are going to work better for different groups and different genres. I just don't think that it's inherently any worse, either. Because, yeah, once again, there is no "magic system," and that applies as much to immersion as any other thing. I also think that we were starting with somewhat different priorities when it comes to immersion, which may make my suggestions more or less useful depending on what you want to emphasize.

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: Steerpike
And in a play, you're just sitting in a playhouse watching people talk on stage.  In a movie theatre, you're sitting in dark looking at a gian black screen.  In a video game you're sitting in front of a computer.  As I see it, immersion is about those aspects of the experience fading into the background

.Yes, totally! That's actually my point. Once you've gotten over this huge obstacle, the whole the fictional thing that I'm experiencing is fiction thing, the rest of it is minor by comparison. (Like, if you're watching a play, are you going to be abruptly and disappointingly pulled out of your immersion in it if one of the actors improvises a line? Maybe if they do it badly... but the whole point of my original post is saying "here are my suggestions on how to not do it badly")

I am putting words into Steerpike's mouth/pen/keyboard here...so he's free to work it...but I think his point is that in these experiences, your immersion is enhanced due to the consistency of the experience.  Improvising a line is one thing, but having the director come over and ask you how and if you'd want to change the play to make it more enjoyable?  That's a better analogy for shared narrative control.  

Quote from: LordVreeg

Quote from: Sparkletwist

Quote from: Steerpike
And in a play, you're just sitting in a playhouse watching people talk on stage.  In a movie theatre, you're sitting in dark looking at a gian black screen.  In a video game you're sitting in front of a computer.  As I see it, immersion is about those aspects of the experience fading into the background

.Yes, totally! That's actually my point. Once you've gotten over this huge obstacle, the whole the fictional thing that I'm experiencing is fiction thing, the rest of it is minor by comparison. (Like, if you're watching a play, are you going to be abruptly and disappointingly pulled out of your immersion in it if one of the actors improvises a line? Maybe if they do it badly... but the whole point of my original post is saying "here are my suggestions on how to not do it badly")

I am putting words into Steerpike's mouth/pen/keyboard here...so he's free to work it...but I think his point is that in these experiences, you're immersion is enhanced due to the consistency of the experience.  Improvising a line is one thing, but having the director come over and ask you how and if you'd want to change the play to make it more enjoyable?  That's a better analogy for shared narrative control. 

And while there are a number of styles and forms of theater that do this, they are are centered around ideas about interaction and collaboration between the audience and the director/actors (the 'narrativism' of this analogy) not about creating the illusion of reality and actively enabling suspension of disbelief (aka 'immersion').

Quote from: LordVreegI am putting words into Steerpike's mouth/pen/keyboard here...so he's free to work it...but I think his point is that in these experiences, your immersion is enhanced due to the consistency of the experience.  Improvising a line is one thing, but having the director come over and ask you how and if you'd want to change the play to make it more enjoyable?  That's a better analogy for shared narrative control. 

To me that's more an analogy for "doing it badly." :grin:

To elaborate, I see what you're saying, but the director doing that is immensely jarring and totally destroys the atmosphere the play is trying to create, and I can completely understand how that happening would break immersion... in the realm of the analogy, as Hippo observed, it's an entirely different sort of theater. But! The whole point of this thread (or at least my original post) is to ask and answer the question, hey, how can we insert narrative control and such things while still maintaining plenty of chances for immersion? That is, to keep using this analogy, how can the director get this answer out of the play-goers without disrupting the play?

Quote from: sparkletwistYes, totally! That's actually my point. Once you've gotten over this huge obstacle, the whole the fictional thing that I'm experiencing is fiction thing, the rest of it is minor by comparison. (Like, if you're watching a play, are you going to be abruptly and disappointingly pulled out of your immersion in it if one of the actors improvises a line? Maybe if they do it badly... but the whole point of my original post is saying "here are my suggestions on how to not do it badly")

The way I see it, lots of shows/plays/films/games draw attention to the fact that they're fiction (hence the whole concept of metafiction).  The plays of Brecht, for example, are all about this - fostering what he calls the "distancing effect" or alienation, in which we're encouraged to remember we're watching a performance and to resist identification with the characters.  Brecht's "epic theatre" is all about resisting the idea of "illusion" - veritimilitude - that other plays try so hard to cultivate, to always remind audiences that they're watching a play rather than letting them "immerse" and simply become swept up in the drama of the action, forgetting they're watching a play.  To do this, Brecht employs various dramatic devices to estrange the audience from the action, to constantly distance them from the material being presented.  For Brecht this is all in service of a didactic function, to foster socio-political consciousness.

Lots of other media do this, too.  The brilliant post-modern sitcom Community is hyper-aware of itself as being a show, for example, constantly reminding us we're watching a show (for example, this genius moment absolutely relies on the audience's knowledge that the actress playing Annie, Alison Brie, is also on Mad Men, specifically requiring us to acknowledge that Annie is being played by an actress, that we're watching a performance).  This moment from 30 Rock would also qualify.  In contrast, I'd consider something like The Office committed to almost absolute verisimilitude - even though the show is absurd (and, tragically, increasingly unwatchable...), everything about it asks us to forget what we're watching is fiction, to trick us into thinking we're watching a documentary (I can think of a couple of "meta" moments that violate this rule, but they're uncommon compared to the constant self-awareness of Community and the like).

This is what I feel the out-of-character/into-character "switch" you're arguing for could contribute to - a kind of distancing effect in the Brechtian mode, in which we're being pulled out of the experience for a moment and reminded that we're playing a game, crafting an artificial story.  Especially by switchng back forth between the first and the third person, as you suggest, we're being alienated, to some degree, from the characters; by pulling back out of the character position and thinking about the overall shape of the story, on a kind of "meta" level, we're being distanced from the action to some degree, and I think that inevitably this is going to threaten the game's verisimilitude, the illusion that what's happening is real, that the players are the characters, etc.  Now, there's already a ton of "distancing"  in any roleplaying game, simply because of the mechanics of the game, but I do think it's fair to say that some systems are going to be better than others for immersion insofar as they avoid this kind of distancing.  Does that make sense?  It's like how in a play they dim the lights, drawing your attention to the stage.  It's still a stage, but we're encouraged to forget it's a stage.  Narrativist meta-moments, for me, are like flashing the lights for a moment.  It's possible that verisimilitude could be sustained, but it'd still be better if the lights stayed dim, unless you don't mind about troubling verisimilitude, which is also just fine.

Quote from: spaqrkletwistI don't think it's better, either. Like I said way up there, there is no "magic system," and different things are going to work better for different groups and different genres. I just don't think that it's inherently any worse, either. Because, yeah, once again, there is no "magic system," and that applies as much to immersion as any other thing. I also think that we were starting with somewhat different priorities when it comes to immersion, which may make my suggestions more or less useful depending on what you want to emphasize.

Fair enough, and I can agree with the idea that there's no "magic system" - absolutely.  However, I would contend that some systems are better at doing some things than others.  This is the opposite of the "magic system" idea: instead of one system or type of system for every type of game, and "infinitely flexible" system that can accomodate all gaming styles, I'd suggest that different games should really seek different sorts of systems.  A hard-nosed simulationist system is not going to work well in a game about larger-than-life heroes, or one that's stressing the idea of a cohesive, dramatic story above all else, or one that wants to foster a sense of collaborative storytelling.  Likewise a hardcore gamist system, like 4E, probably isn't the ideal choice for a game that's all about high-stakes politics and intrigue in a medieval court, stressing social maneuvering, rank, and negotiation.  Again, I do think the GNS model is imperfect, and certainly no system/game/campaign could be considerfed "purely" narrativist, gamemist, simulationist, etc, but to the extent that games can be understood in GNS terms, I'd simply contend that narratvist mechanics aren't especially good at fostering immersion, as I understand it.  I think your understanding of immersion is ultimately quite different from mine, and that's cool.

As I see it there are basically three claims/propositions/theses at play here:

1) Narrativist mechanics and player empowerment can help to foster immersion.  Thus, narrativist systems are better in some ways than other systems at creating immersion.
2) Narrativist systems are no better and no worse than other systems at fostering immersion.  Narrativist mechanics pose absolutely no threat whatosever to immersion if handled properly.
3) Narrativist mechanics and immersion can co-exist.  The mere presence of narrativist mechanics doesn't have to destroy immersion, and any threat posed by such mechanics can be minimized with certain techniques.

I'd disagree with 1 and 2, but concur with 3.

I think my position's pretty clear, now, so I'll stop clogging up the thread with critique as I think I'm in danger of coming off as incessantly negative and/or a bit of a curmudgeon.  I totally concede that some of the techniques you listed could help to mitigate the threat narrativism poses to verismilitude and immersion, but I'm not convinced that most of them do much to create verisimilitude, and I'd still think that a system which avoids narrativst mechanics altogether is probably better at sustaining immersion, though of course it's going to lack those (freuqently awesome) features that narrative mechanics and player empowerment can bring.