Vreeg's Fifth Law of Setting Design

[LordVreeg]

Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design

The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion.   Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position.  

(Cole, of the RPGsite, gets credit for the term).


Not every GM places immersion as high up the ladder as I do; I think a lot of this has to do with my psychology background.  Roleplaying therapy involves "getting into character" as much as possible; so a roleplaying game, in my experience and mindset, is based upon this level of immersion.

But this does force some GMing questions when it is thought about.  if the players can see the machination, you are forcing them outside this immersion.  You are forcing them to see the hands moving the pieces and not just the pieces.  

[spoiler=part of the conversations]
c) I agree with Justin that smacking the players in the face with the fact they are playing a game that is partially prepped by nature (as we all agree, there is no way every NPC and every connection and every NPC viewpoint can be preprepped) can ruin or at least raise the barrier towards immersion. Justin's point about the randomly generated sewer is in line with this; to the players, it is not 'real' because it is not part of the larger, logical created setting (which actually says volumes about games that use a shared narrative). This is what what ties it to Cole's earlier comments; the players will NEVER immerse as heavily into the improvised parts of the game.
This also deals with the faith in the GM's authority, and how the players feel about ramifications. It may be fun, it may be well done, but the second the players know you are doing something on the fly, they look at it differently as players. It's in the same catagory as when they know you fudge your rolls, it weakens immersion and the sense that you are merely reflecting the world of the setting to the players, as opposed to having your own agenda.

As Ben said; a good GM runs a game that the PCs never feel any of this. They feel the reality of the setting being represented by the GM and the impartiality in how that representation reflects the players actions in that setting. The transitions between prepared and improvised must be unseen and unfelt by the players; when they can feel these transitions, it is forcing them at some level to see the world outside the setting.
[/spoiler]

I'll post more on this later.  This is a WIP, ramification thread, so I don't know if it will be of any use to anyone else; but I thought it thought-provoking.

[Nomadic]

An interesting idea and I can't wait to see you go more in depth on it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though as I've run entire games where everyone knew every single thing was made up on the fly, and they loved it more than my prepared games.

[LordVreeg]

An interesting idea and I can't wait to see you go more in depth on it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though as I've run entire games where everyone knew every single thing was made up on the fly, and they loved it more than my prepared games.

Immersion does not equal fun.  It makes it easier to play a role and get into character...but that is just one of the things that one enjoys in a game.  It may (in my estimation) make it more of a roleplaying game; but that does not always equate to more fun.

[Superfluous Crow]

This is only peripherally relevant, but I've played a handful of narrative-heavy and scene-setting games; essentially where players double as characters and game masters, setting the scenes which they and their fellow players take part in within the framework of an organically growing improvised common story.
This type of game seems very conductive to roleplaying in general. If done right, players quickly become connected to the characters they are playing and put a lot of effort into their acting. On the other hand, these games do not even pretend to possess an "Illusion of Preparedness" (they are often GM-free) and I've heard many say it's immersion-breaking, which only stands to reason when you are brought back into the "Real World" after each scene has been played out. So in some ways these games represent an interesting border case.    

[LordVreeg]

This is only peripherally relevant, but I've played a handful of narrative-heavy and scene-setting games; essentially where players double as characters and game masters, setting the scenes which they and their fellow players take part in within the framework of an organically growing improvised common story.
This type of game seems very conductive to roleplaying in general. If done right, players quickly become connected to the characters they are playing and put a lot of effort into their acting. On the other hand, these games do not even pretend to possess an "Illusion of Preparedness" (they are often GM-free) and I've heard many say it's immersion-breaking, which only stands to reason when you are brought back into the "Real World" after each scene has been played out. So in some ways these games represent an interesting border case.    

On the contrary, I find this very, very relevant.

I like your comment to connectedness.  I generally feel like the constant awareness of things outside playing in-character ruins a lot of the immersion, but a willingness to become connected and invested might counteract much of that.

[Superfluous Crow]

I think that it helps that when immersion is broken, players are not faced with the "Real World" (be it snacks, the weather, discussions about tv series or what have you) but instead by another level of roleplaying (the creation of the common story). So these games are in fact a sort of nested game-within-a-game, so even if you don't experience as much true character immersion you can generally maintain a higher level of game immersion.

[Lmns Crn]

One fun thing about GM-less games, or about games where the GM takes more of a background role in general, is that it seems to foster more interaction between the various players.

What I mean is, in games with a sort of top-down, authoritative GM, each player is often primarily focused on interacting with the GM-- the GM steals a huge chunk of spotlight, just by the stuff they have to be doing to make the game go. Rather than really meaningfully engaging with each other (and with each others' storylines), players often seem to be playing almost one-on-one games-- just me and ol' GM!-- which seldom intersect with each other.

If you have a game where the GM takes a back seat (particularly if players are given a measure of GM-like power to make declarations and assertions that move the game along), players interact more with each other. Because there's no other choice. (That's just the way the story is designed to move forward, after all.) When it's tuned well, the GM can just sort of be a fly on the wall much of the time, and rather than focusing all his attention on running the game, he can offer twists and hooks here and there, draw out players who aren't saying/doing much, and generally sort of massage the game, because the game is running itself.

I find this dynamic-- players investing in each others' characters-- is what I always think of when I think of the best memories from games I've been in, and it's the sort of thing I'm always striving to recapture.

Perhaps I'm using a different understanding of the word "immersion" than the rest of you, though: rather than "immersion in a fictional world I'm pretending to live in", it's "immersion in other peoples' stories, which I am helping to jointly tell".

Edit: another discrepancy: noticed the OP is talking about setting design (I'm pretty sure this is the case, at least), while I am talking about game design. So, uh, whoops

[Lmns Crn]

What are the other four (or more?) laws?

[Nomadic]

An interesting idea and I can't wait to see you go more in depth on it. I'm not sure how I feel about it though as I've run entire games where everyone knew every single thing was made up on the fly, and they loved it more than my prepared games.

Immersion does not equal fun.  It makes it easier to play a role and get into character...but that is just one of the things that one enjoys in a game.  It may (in my estimation) make it more of a roleplaying game; but that does not always equate to more fun.

It equals fun for me :D

Seriously though I think that if you have the right mindset you can make things up on the fly without breaking immersion though in such a case the immersion is more in the storytelling itself than the world. This can be a good thing sometimes I think.

[SA]

Hmm. In my experience player immersion has always been dependent on bastard friends barraging me with questions I don't know the answers to. So I throw my setting book at their smug little faces and snarl "fuck you, answer them yourself". And then they do. (True story)

When players come up with ideas while I tie the ideas into a coherent whole, they take the setting more seriously. It seems form a greater presence in their minds.

The illusion of preparedness doesn't fly with us because game moves so quick that they see right through it.

[Superfluous Crow]

In general, there are probably many levels of immersion that can be achieved: game immersion is the most shallow level where you are focused on the game and its elements as opposed to the world around you, story immersion comes next and here the players consider the story they are telling rather than the framework they are telling it in. At the deepest level we have character immersion (perhaps with an intermediate level of Setting immersion before it?) where the players see only what their characters see and only think what their characters think.
The lack of an Illusion of Preparedness would most definitely break character immersion, of course depending on how apparent the lack is. If the GM is rummaging through his papers or the NPC seems rough around the edges the character/player gestalt-being will be reminded that this is not real, if only for a second.
I'm not sure it would break story immersion though?
Also, I echo LC's question: what are the other 4 laws?

[SA]

I'm not sure it would break story immersion though?

Not in my experience. :)

[LordVreeg]

For those who were asking...

[ic=The Rules]

Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."[/list]

Corrollary to Vreeg's First Rule.
"The amount of rules given to a certain dimension of an RPG partially dictate what kind of game the rules will create.  If 80% of the rulebook is written about thieves and the underworld, the game that is meant for is thieving.  If 80% of the mechanics are based on combat, the game will revolve around combat.  

Multiply this by 10 if the reward system is based in the same area as the proponderance of rules."

2nd Corrollary.
"Character growth is the greatest reinforcer.  The syntheses of pride in achievement with improvement in the character provides over 50% of the reinforcement in playing the game.  Rules that involve these factors are the most powerful in the game."

Vreeg's Second Rule of Setting Design,
Consistency is the Handmaiden of Immersion and Versimilitude. Keep good notes, and spend a little time after every creation to '˜connect the dots'. If you create a foodtuff or drink, make sure you notate if the bars or inns the players frequent. Is it made locally, or is it imported? If so, where from? If locally made, is it exported?[/list]

Vreeg's Third Rule of Setting Design,
The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of design. The players need to feel like things will happen with or without them; they need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but event-chains need velocity, not just speed.[/list]

Vreeg's Fourth Rule of Setting Design,
Create motivated events and NPCs, this will invariably create motivated PCs. Things are not just happening, they happen because they matter to people (NPCs). There is no overacting here, make sure that the settings and event-chains are motivated and that the PCs feel this.[/list]
 

Vreeg's Fifth Rule of Setting Design
The 'Illusion of Preparedness' is critical for immersion; allowing the players to see where things are improvised or changed reminds them to think outside the setting, removing them forcibly from immersion.   Whenever the players can see the hand of the GM, even when the GM needs to change things in their favor; it removes them from the immersed position.  
(Cole, of the RPGsite, gets credit for the term).[/list]
[/i][/size][/ic]

[LordVreeg]

In general, there are probably many levels of immersion that can be achieved: game immersion is the most shallow level where you are focused on the game and its elements as opposed to the world around you, story immersion comes next and here the players consider the story they are telling rather than the framework they are telling it in. At the deepest level we have character immersion (perhaps with an intermediate level of Setting immersion before it?) where the players see only what their characters see and only think what their characters think.
The lack of an Illusion of Preparedness would most definitely break character immersion, of course depending on how apparent the lack is. If the GM is rummaging through his papers or the NPC seems rough around the edges the character/player gestalt-being will be reminded that this is not real, if only for a second.
I'm not sure it would break story immersion though?
Also, I echo LC's question: what are the other 4 laws?

Setting Immersion is critical to character immersion.  Thinking 'in character' requires being able to think of the setting as the enviroment of the character.  

And what you define as story immersion is a different level.  it is a different mindset to respond as the character, in first person

[LordVreeg]

[blockquote=LC]I do think it's possible to encourage players to take dramatic risks, and I think that one way to do that is to actually take catastrophic results off the table in some circumstances. When you frame a conflict, determine the stakes ahead of time, so that the players know what they stand to lose/gain if they fail/succeed.

Like: You're playing Sir Steve, and you've got major beef with Geoff the Gladiator, so you say "Hey, I'm going to kill Geoff." And Geoff's player (maybe the ST?) responds: "Well, Geoff is going to kill you right back." And maybe that's okay with both players, and you go right ahead and have a fatal duel and the loser dies.

Or maybe you say: "Hold on a sec, I don't want Sir Steve to die-- instead of killing Geoff, I just want to disfigure him, give him a permanent scar so he'll always remember how I bested him and be reminded of his failure." And Geoff's player says: "Okay, disfigurement vs. killing isn't a balanced set of stakes, so what if Geoff just humiliates Steve in front of this crowd, discrediting him in front of his liege lord and also his girlfriend?"

So if that's agreeable to everyone, Steve and Geoff have their knock-down, drag-out brawl, and both know that they can risk the fight because death is not on the table. Steve's player knows that if he loses, the worst that will happen is disgrace, and Geoff's player knows that if he loses, the worst that will happen is a permanent scar. Neither one of those negative outcomes makes the character unplayable (being dead, on the other hand, certainly does), so while being less likely to risk death (as there's no risk of that at all, in this scene), they are potentially more likely to risk a dramatic fight. (As a bonus, the consequences for loss actually make each losing character more interesting, arguably.)[/blockquote]

LC, you asked about immersion earlier.  So I shamelessly cut and pasted this from Nom's thread to illustrate a point.

This can be one of those times where the mechanic you are using may make a better storyline, but it reduces the setting immersion and the ability to stay in character.  This does not make it a better or worse game.  this does not make it more or less fun.  It does reduce the level of immersion, I contend.

1) the players both have to stop playing and thinking in character to go use a mechanic that takes them back into conversing as players outside the game; out of first person.
2) The players are stepping out of character to determine how the world will react to their actions.  In an immersed position, the Player acts in character, and deals with how the world responds to those actions.  In a real fight, the combatents don't stop and decide that they will fight until scarring; they fight, and in a GMed game, if they were both players, I would not allow them to speak except in character.  And if one was fighting to wound and hit too hard and killed the other one, such would be the way it happens in a real, violent situation.  No stepping out of character, the rules are set up to try to keep the players IC.

Again, this may make a worse narrative.  It certainly can be less cinematic.  And for a lot of people, perhaps less fun.  I am not trying to argue what is fun, by Orcus' Anus.  But this was a perfect example.