ewilen: Notes on Correlation

Elliot Wilen (

ewilen) wrote,
@ 2005-11-08 14:51:00

Entry tags:

gns, immersion

Notes on Correlation
This thread concerning '"Channeling" and GNS' on the Forge ended badly. Perhaps its successor here will be more productive. (Note: "channeling" refers to the practice of "channeling character"--seeing and doing things entirely from the perspective of a character. "Drama", I suppose, refers to the desire for thematic developments in the course of play.)

One thing that came up in the doomed thread was a comment from Ron Edwards that "channeling/drama" conflicts are likely to arise when Narrativist and Simulationist CA's clash, but that a "channeling/drama" conflict doesn't mean that a CA clash is occurring.

It turns out that this is an unbelievably complex assertion. It can be approached from many angles, but before you can even start, you have to grapple with the fundamental limitations of normal speech and how people tend to think about words like "correlation" and "typical" when they aren't being careful.

Suppose you have 100 cases where games went wrong due to either "channel/drama" conflicts or N/S clash. They might break down as:

40 "channel/drama" clash and N/S clash
20 N/S clash only
40 "channel/drama" clash only

With these numbers you could reasonably say that an N/S clash typically entails a "channel/drama" clash, since 67% of all N/S clashes are also "channel/drama" clashes. Conversely you might say that a "channel/drama" clash is just as likely not to involve an N/S clash as it is to have one, so there's nothing "typically N/S" about "channel/drama" clashes.

But let's look at things a little differently. Suppose that in addition to the 100 cases we just talked about, we've also seen some number of clashes which involved neither "channel/drama" nor N/S clash. And now I say that one type of clash is typical of the other, or that the two types of problems are correlated. What does that mean? This opens up an alternate view of "typical", which happens to be the strict definition of "correlation" in mathematical terms. ("Positive correlation", if you want to be picky.) Instead of saying that "X is typical of Y" when X shows up more than 50% of the time that Y is present, we might say that "X is typical of (correlated with) Y" when the presence of Y makes us more likely to believe that X will show up than we would think otherwise.

Suppose that, other than the 100 cases, there are 10 more clashes that fall into the category "other". Now, if I make a slip of paper for each case, throw them all in a hat, and draw one at random, what's the chance that it will be an N/S clash? Answer: 60/110 = 55%. But what if you draw one at random and tell me that it's a "channel/drama" clash--what is the chance that it's also N/S? Answer: 40/80 = 50%.

Let's look at it from the other direction. Draw a random case: what's the chance it will be a "channeling/drama" clash? Answer: 80/110 = 73%. Now draw a random case and see that it's an N/S clash. The chance that it's also a channeling clash goes down to 40/60 = 67%

In other words, if these 110 cases are representative of all your gaming experience, then seeing one type of clash should make you less likely to suspect that the other type is present. The two types of clash really aren't "typical" of each other at all, from that perspective. At best, they're just "typical" of the sorts of clashes that turn up in gaming.

But wait a second. Suppose that, instead of 10 "other" cases, there are 100. If you draw a random case now, the chance it'll be "channeling/drama" is 80/200 = 40%. But if you know it's N/S, the chance it's also "channeling/drama" goes up, to 67%. Conversely, the chance that a random case will be N/S is 60/200 = 30% if you don't know anything else about it. But if you know it entails "channeling/drama", there's a 50% chance that it's also N/S.

Now, even though seeing a "channeling/drama" clash shouldn't make you think that there's a better-than-even chance that the other type is also present, we might still say that they're "typical" of each other--certainly, they're related enough that seeing one of them should make you more likely to suspect that the other is present.

Well, I have to run. This entry was originally going to be "Notes on Correlation and Causation", but I'll have to take that up in the comments.

(Post a new comment)

	heron61 2005-11-09 02:03 am UTC (link)
	What a perfect example of John Kim being typically wise and reasonable and Ron Edwards being typically dense and confronational - I'm quite impressed. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	lee_os 2005-11-09 03:09 am UTC (link)
	I wasn't going to say it...but yeah. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lee_os 2005-11-09 04:23 am UTC (link)
	Actually, that's not really fair to Ron. He's typically neither dense nor confrontational...but certainly John seems to bring out the worst in him. (Reply to this)(Parent)

continuing where I left off

ewilen
2005-11-09 08:11 am UTC (link)

(Note: I've edited my entry a bit to fix some typos and a math error.)

Okay, so here we come to the limits of correlation, especially when you're talking about informal samples based on personal experience.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that for all gaming, the breakdown is exactly as I described: out of those games which have problems with either N/S or "channel/drama" clashes, 40% will have both, 20% will only entail N/S, and 40% will only have "channel/drama".

However, let's suppose that, for whatever reason, person A only sees a handful of games with "other" kinds of problems. Meanwhile, person B has seen a large number of games with "other" kinds of problems.

Person A is going to say, "I see N/S clashes in combination with channel/drama clashes rather less often than I see N/S clashes overall. So if I see a channel/drama clash I find it's most profitable to examine it in isolation and play down the possibility that N/S might be a contributing factor."

Person B is going to say, "My experience is exactly the opposite. When I see a channel/drama clash, it puts me on the trail to N/S. And likely as not, there is an N/S clash. If there isn't a channel/drama clash, though, it's likely to be something completely different, not even related to CA."

In short, making an evaluation that the two phenomena are connected or unconnected based on personal experience is nearly futile. There are really only two ways to explore the question: through a controlled experiment (good luck with that!), or deductively, based on definitions and discussion. Actual Play reports aren't going to answer whether there's an essential connection between the two types of clash. But they can give concrete form to the abstract notions being discussed. Also, they provide an opportunity to examine how different factors interacted with each other in that particular instance.

Having said that, I'm going to revise my comment in the Channeling and GNS thread. I do think that "Channeling" can be a source of Creative Agenda Incoherence, not just a Threefold style clash, and I will speculate on a causal relationship. As I see it, GNS Narrativism entails a group desire for the development and resolution of character-defining conflict. Therefore if there's "channeling" without some kind of pre-positioning, or the deliberate construction of characters who are rich in potential for this kind of conflict, and if there's no Author-stance decision during play to drive the characters into interesting conflicts, it will be much harder to guarantee that Narrativism will happen.

I need to add a standard disclaimer that I'm not an advocate of GNS as currently constructed. But I recognize the idea of "addressing premise" as a type of activity which can be an aesthetic preference, just as "tactical decisionmaking" can be an activity which engages players' interest. So I interpret GNS Narrativism as a type of play characterized by prioritizing premise-addressing. That's by-the-book, I think, but where I differ from GNS is that I'm skeptical about the idea that enjoyable play must focus on any one aesthetic element as a clear priority.

(Reply to this)

Here's the thing ...

marcochacon
2005-11-09 12:27 pm UTC (link)

Your (correct, I think) scenarios presume that one can even diagnose N/S clashes correctly. I think this is questionable. Firstly most people cannot diagnose this (see Jay's simulationism arguments). Secondly, because CA is supposed to go to all levels of play then the technique level (which is where Chan/Drama clashes occurr, I would think) is muddled.

If the N/S clash is *only* there as well, it is indistinguishable (i.e. if the only level where play is distinguished is on the technique level then you have a necessiarily ambiguous case).

-Marco

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

ewilen
2005-11-10 01:31 am UTC (link)

I think I get what you're saying, but I think we might be able to deal with the problem by careful maneuvering. First note that Narrativism is, strictly speaking, a set of behaviors that emphasize an aesthetic preference: a preference for premise-addressing as the main focus of play. So let's forget about Nar/Sim and just ask, regarding a given constellation of techniques, whether they facilitate or impede the development and resolution of Premises.

As I wrote above, my interpretation of a Premise is a character-defining conflict. Divided loyalties, one thing pushing a character in one direction, something else pulling him in a different direction, and the character decides and strives in a way that says something new about him as a person.

If you're channeling, and you haven't pre-positioned your character so that it's easy and plausible to have him in the middle of a moral conflict, then I'm saying that getting him into a moral conflict might be hard. Or else the GM might have to resort to some not-so-discreet manipulation to get him into one. On the other hand, if you construct your character at the start of play so that he's ripe for conflict, the GM doesn't have to skirt the edge of railroading to get your character into the kind of situations that develop Premise. So character pre-positioning can be a Premise-facilitating technique in conjunction with channeling.

In-play development and "Premise grabbing" are also Premise-facilitating techniques. If you develop your character in-play by choosing to have him do things which are interesting, that again takes the burden off the GM. Note that "interesting" is often the opposite of "wise". It's often the opposite of facile consistency as well; a hero cop who walks the straight-and-narrow is harder to make interesting than a hero cop who stumbles and falls into temptation. At least, to make it interesting, the GM and player should work together to derive enjoyment from the fact that "being a hero cop" carries a price. If the GM presents a Serpico-type situation, and the player balks because it seems contrived and impedes his ability to "channel", then at best you've ruled out a potential Premise ("Honor and principles vs. friendship, money, and safety"); at worst, it's the end of the game.

Of course, this all assumes that "addressing premise" is something the players want to do. And also, per my disclaimer above, it's all relative to the emphasis on "premise-addressing". If the group wants tight, fast story development, then the moral conflicts need to be underlined: big and urgent in character creation, quickly agreed-on and maneuvered-into during play. The players and GM mustn't be "blocking" one another and failing to grab onto the Premises which are proffered. E.g., if you're playing Serpico, you might think about quitting the police force. But how is it going to facilitate play if the GM has to chase after you with Premises? Conversely what good does it do if a proactive player proposes an interesting course of action, but the GM either blocks it or simply resolves it without consequence?

If you have less interest in putting Premise front and center, and more time to develop the context for moral conflicts, then the above considerations simply become less important. I'm not sure they go away completely, though (assuming you have some interest in Premise). Instead I suspect that the length of a long-term campaign can itself operate as a Premise-facilitating technique: a character in a long-term campaign tends to become implicated in his relationships with other characters and the social web of the game-world, and these relationships then offer opportunities for Premise-addressing.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

marcochacon
2005-11-10 01:49 am UTC (link)

Right--well, I agree that the fitness of character is a key element in determining if there is any element of premise. Of course we're back to shallow vs. deep. If I make a character who is a complete cypher with no motivations (or very, very basic ones) then it doesn't seem a narrativst plan.

Thing is, the channeling issue is pretty moot there. The player may say they are totally into their character--but if the character is patently 1.5-dimensional is that really meaningful?

-Marco

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Here's the thing ... ewilen 2005-11-11 11:06 pm UTC (link)
	I think I may have something to say about this below, in reply to John. Look in that space in the next few minutes or hours... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Here's the thing ... jhkimrpg 2005-11-11 09:20 pm UTC (link)
	Interesting. In my experience, it is something of the opposite. That is, characters which are channeled have more moral conflicts -- whereas the characters who are not channeled are often much less conflicted over their actions. That is, I find that as a technique, channeling often helps players to find moral conflicts. I'm curious about the difference here. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

ewilen
2005-11-12 12:32 am UTC (link)

I'm glad you found this discussion, John.

I don't know if I have a really good, general-purpose answer to the issues that you and Marco are bringing up. Basically, though, I'm claiming that if you avoid overt discussion and OOC agreement, or shall we say, author-level commitment, to develop moral conflicts, then you're making things hard on yourself.

(Again, we're assuming moral conflict is what you want. Also, I'm not saying there aren't other things to be gained by channeling, even if channeling may have a cost for some purposes.)

Now, you're suggesting that channeling is a good technique for having a three-dimensional character. I believe that. It's certainly a good technique for avoiding pawn-stance Gamism. Marco is also pointing to shallow-vs.-deep as the important factor in whether you and the GM can work up good conflicts or not.

But I think that in some ways, that's really not enough. One reason is trivial: many people naturally take the easy way out when they face difficult conflicts. It's the all-too-common case of PC's who, when confronted by a challenge, simply call the authorities and walk away. So what the GM has to do is chase down the PC and push until he finds a cleavage. Doable? Yes. Can it risk violating credibility? Yes. Is it harder than working with a player who's going to help you locate the conflicts he wants to work with, and/or bite at the ones that you offer? I think so.

Related to this is a sensitive issue of "character privacy". It's a very Forge-y thing to say that when you write a disadvantage or limitation down on your character sheet, you're telling the GM that you want to make it into a focus of play. And you know--that sounds like it could be a great way to structure a game if everyone is on-board, especially for a rapid-paced character-based game. But not everyone feels that way, particularly if they're looking for what we used to call a "world-based" experience. "Sure, we want 3-D characters, but we also want a 3-D world, not some kind of conflict-vortex swirling around us."

Somewhere I recently read an apt comment that, for an immersive roleplayer, having the GM hammer on your character's conflicts can be a little too emotionally intense. So just building a 3D character may not be enough: you still need to position the character with regard to what's a valid Premise and what's off-limits. Without some kind of OOC communication or commitment, the GM is left to guess--is this element of that character a crucial part of his identity, and the player will balk if it's threatened (possibly regarding it as a form of railroading)? Or is it an invitation to Premise? In other words, defining the character isn't enough: the player also has to be committed to seeing part of the definition challenged. (Arguably that's antithetical to in-character thinking.) Faced with a channeling player, the GM might find that the safest route is to play hands-off.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

marcochacon
2005-11-12 12:24 pm UTC (link)

"Basically, though, I'm claiming that if you avoid overt discussion and OOC agreement, or shall we say, author-level commitment, to develop moral conflicts, then you're making things hard on yourself."

I wanted to address this because I agree with John: the more I'm in my character's head, the more likely I am to become wrapped up in moral/human-experience conflicts.

1. Front loading is very important to this. When I create a character, I usually create a charcter who is on some kind of an edge. I find that even if the game does not cater to my character's edge, it is still there and still relevant.

2. The method of GMing we usually employ is detailed in an essay on our site (Integrated Scenario Design) which is a method that pretty much uses the standard character-generation techniques to help ensure that the GM and Players are on the same page.

One reason I don't like talking about "the Premise" is that this would, to me, send the wrong messages to the GM. I can rarely easily articulate what my "Premise" should be--I have a character with issues and sometimes I can't even articulate all of them.

I'm not sure what such a conversation would be like--but I do know that in several situations I have been *glad* I didn't articulate the underlying goals of my play because either they changed during the game or things worked out so well that I was gratified that I hadn't "pushed" in that direction (I have an actual-play thread on RPGnet that is a perfect example of this).

-Marco

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

ewilen
2005-11-13 01:57 am UTC (link)

I think I overemphasized the "overt discussion" element. But "author-level commitment" is perfectly represented by front loading and creating characters on the edge. The extreme case of "no author-level", IMO, would be to generate a random person drawn from the population of the game world. With the Integrated Scenario Design procedure, you're doing something quite different.

Maybe this isn't a big issue for some roleplayers. For me personally, though, it took some doing to realize that if I want to have characters who are interesting to play I have to make them that way. It probably started as a reaction to the way that D&D formalized the role of PCs both in terms of having classes and levels. At least in AD&D1e, "normal people" were "zero level". So in tossing out all the D&D assumptions I decided I wanted PCs who were normal. Why shouldn't a PC be a greengrocer? But then what will the poor player do? If you play it straight by the rules, Harnmaster 1e comes very close to this dilemma, while the ISD process is one way out of it.

That said, the way you've written up ISD (especially the examples), it isn't necessarily going to produce "fit" characters for quick Premise-addressing. Primarily, you've described a way to provide in-game motivation for group unity and adventuring. If Premise-addressing is a high priority, I think there'd be a greater emphasis on conflicting push & pull.

In fact I think we're drifting into that Nar-Sim borderland which illustrates a weakness of GNS. It also illustrates why hardcore Narrativists and Immersives often find themselves arguing: to the hardcore Nar, the Immersive approach is so slow and indirect that it gets tagged as Sim. To an Immersive, rapidly-developed Premise address might be unacceptable (seen as railroading, a conflict-vortex, or invasive), even if moral conflicts are seen as enhancing play.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Here's the thing ... ewilen 2005-11-13 04:44 am UTC (link)
	BTW, Marco, can you point me to the AP thread on RPGnet? Thanks. --Elliot (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Here's the thing ... marcochacon 2005-11-13 12:50 pm UTC (link)
	Here it is: http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?p=4100069#post4100069 (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

ewilen
2005-11-13 11:07 pm UTC (link)

I just checked it out. That picture of Dean, your character, is not to be missed, along with your description of him. It practically oozes with authorial commitment to addressing premise. You've got elements of character which are meant to be opportunities for moral conflict and development. In conjunction with channeling, it's a great premise-facilitating technique--the conflicts are going to come up and develop over the course of adventuring.

Now compare the example from your IDS writeup. I'm not saying it's a bad example, BTW, just that as I read it, it's not especially fruitful for quick & reliable Premise-addressing. The reason is that the strongest moral conflict there is family strife over the PCs' undertaking to engage in a risky adventure. Which way will the PCs go in response to this conflict? Well, they can go off to the desert, or they can give in to family warnings, which means the whole scenario fizzles. So they have to go off to the desert; family pressure isn't so much a focus of moral conflict that can go either way as it is an obstacle to be overcome in the course of advancing the scenario. Or it may just be a bit of color that doesn't even really have to be addressed in the scenario at all.

Now, if the intention is to extend the scenario into a longer-term campaign, you do have the seeds of moral conflict. The pyramid-looting expedition is expository setup; later sessions may deal with the consequences of rebelling against the family's wishes, including fallout from the exact way that family opposition was addressed. But that's the point: those are later. Spend too much time and detail on the expedition and a hardcore Narrativist might see the whole thing as Nar-Sim or Nar-Gam Incoherence. He wants to "Get to the Bangs" while the group is piddling around loading camels, smashing animated skeletons, and hauling loot. Note the split: those are also (more or less) what the characters want to do, and thus the channeling player doesn't want to miss them. By contrast, the characters probably aren't going to look forward to the family strife, so it's probably best to ease into those scenes rather than jump into them. ("Jumping in" practically requires Author-level commitment in itself.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

marcochacon
2005-11-13 11:43 pm UTC (link)

Hi--thanks for the cool assessment of my write up. Clash did the picture and I was just blown away by it. Overall I'm really proud of how that game came together and my role in it.

Here's the thing about the IDS writeup:
1. You are 100% correct that the hard-core *anything* (GNS, Z, X, Y, etc.) will have a problem if the game isn't all whatever that is. In my experience, however, stuff mixes pretty well. The setup takes a session, the dungeon takes a session, the fallout takes a session and leads into the next adventure.

2. Since the *players* came up with the conflict, I imagine the first session would have one character's girlfriend warning him not to go--that there will be consequences if he leaves like that! I can see another character arguing with her father about "responsibility" and "proper behavior."

While it could all fall flat, the idea that the PCs came up with this is a good indication that it oughta be part of the game--in a substantial fashion. Maybe, down in the dungeon, there is a point where they can go on--and risk death--or go back, without it--and the family conflict becomes the focal point of the drama.

I will note that the essay does not, specifically, address a Narrativist concern but rather a general cohesion and party-generated-directional concern. It would not necessiarly generate Narrativist play--but if the PCs have a mind to, it certainly can/will.

-Marco

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

ewilen
2005-11-14 03:02 am UTC (link)

Maybe, down in the dungeon, there is a point where they can go on--and risk death--or go back, without it--and the family conflict becomes the focal point of the drama.

Good point. Particularly if having one death means the PCs are going to catch hell even if they get the loot. It creates stakes for each and every character beyond the baseline question of survival.

Still, what I see in the IDS overall, as you say, is a focusing technique--a way to get everyone on the same page. If premise-addressing is what the players are looking for, they then apply the sub-technique of writing-in conflicts, making them as strong and as urgent as they want relative to their tastes.

Returning to the main point: does channeling, all by itself, make premise-addressing harder? In the extreme case where you randomly generate a "normal" person and then channel him or her, I think it does.

I should note that throughout this discussion I've been taking channeling as nearly synonomous with deep immersion. Taking that as given, I'm also saying that even when you generate an interesting or exceptional character, channeling may interfere with premise-addressing because an Author-level desire for moral conflict may entail a conflict of interest with an Actor-level desire to protect one's identity. Dean shows how to align the interests because (if you'll pardon the snap judgment) he's a walking identity conflict who feels his dilemma. Another player might crave drama but create a character who's all about being a cool uplifted animal. (BTW, Hyaena strikes me as a good choice for your purposes because of popular attitudes about the species--a humanoid Hyaena in Homo sapiens society is a great metaphor for self-hatred and resentment. It wouldn't work quite as well if he was a dolphin or a tiger--animals that are generally viewed with admiration.)

Of course a player can reject challenges to his character's identity without necessarily channeling. So the correlation question isn't resolved. What I'm pointing to, though, is one way that a player might allow his desire to channel to interfere with an interest in drama.

I'm also suggesting that channeling isn't the key to premise-addressing. So even if channeling doesn't have a functional conflict with premise-addressing, a belief that channeling is sufficient for premise-addressing could distract players from making an author-level commitment and employing premise-facilitating techniques. That might seem like a straw man, but if there's anyone out there who has gone down that path (and I suspect that a lot of hardcore Nar types are reacting to precisely that experience), it's highly relevant.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the thing ...

marcochacon
2005-11-14 03:14 am UTC (link)

I think I agree with nearly all of that.

1. A character with no conflicts, when channeled, will, I agree, not lend itself as readily to the address of premise (it must then come from the GM in a way that hooks the character).

2. Again, indeed, channeling can interfere with *drama*--Once I ran into a problem playing a very, very pragmatic character who was invited by a sworn enemy to a party (where the enemy planned a trap). I. Just. Couldn't. Go.

I wanted to--me--the player. But my character? No *way* would he have done that (there are readers who will just not understand this, I'm sure, thinking I have some sort of psychological disorder for even writing those words). I tried to rationalize going. I looked at the angles. I couldn't make it work to my satisfaction.

I didn't go. Drama was lacked.

However, as you know, this is *not* premise (despite what is normally said, these are not the same. Narrativism can be unsatisfyingly undramatic).

3. If channeling were key to premise-addressing then GNS would not work. I think a large number of high-post-count Forge posters who are well regarded in the community don't really believe that immersion and Narrativism can work together.

Finally: The choice of Hyena was a very deliberate one for exactly the reasons you mention. Notably, uplifted hyenas were not even in the game until I came along. Dean was (and is) a great character for "premise addressing" but it's important to note that playing him from an immersed perspective (I think immersion, actor-stance, and channeling are all synonyms) it was important that the game system do exactly what Narrativist systems are *not* supposed to do: render the world.

I will note that a rule that didn't render the world and was used extensively by me to good effect was the auto-zero rule that once during a play-session I could get a perfect success. This gave me some control over what I believed was "really important" (and I used it ruthlessly to that effect) but that, in conjunction with simulational mechanics gave the game a lot of power from my mode of play that wouldn't otherwise have been there if I had, for example, wagered "humanity points" in order to be more effective.

-Marco

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Here's the thing ... marcochacon 2005-11-14 12:35 am UTC (link)
	I will also direct you to the write-up I did for dean (a 2pg Short story) if you wish to look at it--it was what I gave to the GM: http://www.jagsrpg.org/jags/content/personal/Dean.pdf -Marco (Reply to this)(Parent)

	Re: Here's the thing ... losrpg 2005-11-14 03:54 pm UTC (link)
	I've got to agree that front-loading is very very important to games with channelling -- not just if you want Narrativism, but if you want the party to stay together or if you want any specific thing at all. Because if you don't front-load heavily, you're not likely to get where you want to go. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re: Here's the thing ...

ewilen
2005-11-21 11:41 pm UTC (link)

To give credit where it's due, here is the source for the idea of "character privacy", in a post by John Morrow:

"I would also argue that the reason why some immersive players don't talk about the mindscape of their characters (personally, I usually do outside of the game) is that they are afraid that the GM will use what they learn to jerk the characters around. A lot of GMs who are used to playing with players who take a more distanced view of their characters think they are doing players a favor if they run their characters through an emotional wringer to create drama. An immersive player can feel all of that emotion and it's often not very fun in large doses.

"It can be dramatic to watch a movie character stalked by a murderer in a movie. It's usually not fun [...] to be a person stalked by a murderer in the real life. The immersive player isn't experiencing watching the character like they are on a movie screen. The immersive player is experiencing being the character. What's fun to watch is not necessarily fun to experience.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…