The Forge Archives

So I have posted my essay from the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9878">"Beyond Role and Play" book up on my website, along with book information.  So first of all, here is the essay:

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/narrative/immersivestory.html

The gist, in short form, is to suggest a model where each player simultaneously identifies with their own PC as a protagonist.  This might sound trivial, but I think it has major significance from examining the consequences.  If your own PC is the one you identify with, then the story doesn't need the same externalization of inner conflict you find in traditional drama.  The point of this externalization is to allow other people to identify with your character.  Thus an audience member can be drawn through an emotional arc.  But in immersive story, other players don't identify with your PC as a protagonist.  

The inner conflict still needs to be there for each player to have an emotional arc, but it does not need to be externalized in the same way.  I don't go into any detail on techniques for this or game design, but I think it would be an interesting topic for discussion.  Which designs foster externalized drama, and which foster this model?

Yes I agree with this, liked the paper, although I did not feel it rose to a stong conclusion.  There are a couple of remarks I would like to make.

I think the recognition that we are dealing with multiple protaginists is fundamental; to me this radically seperates RPG from conventional story authorship, makes large chunks of the conventions of linear media irrelevent.  I wholly agree that a large part of conventional dramatic devices are aimed at conveyinng the conflict experienced by the main character to the audience, a step largely unnecessary in RPG.

What I would like to raise in response to that however is that in fact there is some role for these dramatic devices - but not in the dialogue between player and Gm, but rather in that between player and player.  Each player constitutes the others audience, and so for player A's activity to be minimally entertaining, player B must comprehend some of the dilemma with which player A is wrestling.  If player A is, well, a closed book, player B never appreciates their viewpoint or contribution becuase it is never visible.

In large part conventional RPG has resolved this problem by, IMO, essentially treating the group of players a s a single protagonist, the multi-headed party beast.  They are presented with a problem they are obliged to address coellectively, whether through personal investment of ties of allegiance to one another.  For most purposes, they act more like a single character in linear media than like multiple characters.

I do think there is room in which actually specific methods of portrayal and exposition can be employed.  I would like structured mechanisms by which players are actually obliged to engage in character portrayal, to initiate scenes which are purposefully directed at communicating the characters state of mind to the audience, in the manner that a singular author might.  At the moment, the presumption is that we just grok this from being in the same space, but I think the experince may be more rewarding if portrayal and exposition are also addressed as goals and methods.

Similarly, I think many of the problems surrounding player creation of objects in the game world could be resolved through such an approach.  What I find aesthetically displeasing about creating my own objects is that it is borderline cheating in my eyes.  As a self-identified gamist, the idea that I might be able to introduce new pieces to the board, as it were, to which my opponent had not signed up, would be grossly abusive.  That is why if I want there to be a tree, I must ask for permission to create a tree, because I do not not know whether or not a tree here, now, matters.  If it does matter, then I will not do it; only if it does NOT matter will I feel free to exercise this power.

But I think that if we could in some manner establish areas of action that are Important, and areas that are Unimportant, and a player knows which is which, then the player can be freely licensed to treat the unimportant area as their sandbox.  This is not an attention paid to realism, or protagonism or challenge, or meaning: its purely concerned with the dramatic structure of the game as played.

Hi John,

I do have some questions about the underlying theory of the Threefold/Three way model, but I see that's a previous essay and not relevant here.

Reading "Immersive Story" I get the impression that it is a validation of a technique that values the minimization of externalization in gaming.  By focusing on the player's inner experience of play, and defining it as a separate category of the Threefold model, the essay validates a style of play that demans little communication performance (not acting, but communication) between the players.  It seems that the opinions of other players at the table are unimportant, perhaps anathema to this style of play.  Would that be correct?

I like the observation that each player experiences his own PC as protagonist.  This is the first time I've seen the point articulated in just this way.  It's very clear and I think it's very true in many forms of roleplaying.  Good work.

Now, I understand what you are proposing is a prescriptive model, as I like to say, that is, this is one way roleplaying can be done, not a descriptive model of how all roleplaying is. The comments below are not meant to claim you are wrong, but to discuss the problems inherent to the proposition. And I get to tell you how much I hate immersionism, which is a bonus ;)

For many styles of play the role of other player's as spectators is absolutely essential. On the other hand there is many important factors to externalizing inner coflict that tie directly to aristotelian drama in general. The whole point of drama is to formalize and give voice to inner conflict that's relevant to the audience. Your character's conflict is always relevant to you, so it's always beneficial in the aristotelian sense to give it external voice, to make it real. This isn't the thread for possible other forms and theories of storytelling, but I for one have never seen a roleplaying game that wasn't at it's root aristotelian, as far as psychology goes.

Anyway, to say it in other words: when a play is enacted and identification with the protagonist occurs there is an important additional element to the process you haven't touched on. This is the effect of verbalization: the relevant feelings or issues that draw the audience are in the medium, not telepathically moved to the audience. This is a great gift for humanity, and I deem it the basis of the textual arts. When you remove this verbalization, as when internalizing drama, you remove a great deal of the point from the drama itself. The main reason drama can do anything to us is that it's presented in a clearer, purer medium than our day-to-day thoughts. The katharsis results from seeing your own issues given form. What you are calling internalized drama I'm calling everyday thought, and that's not so great a thing. A roleplayer perceives, is forced to perceive, the drama he creates when he gives it form. It's not just the other players (although they are important too) but he himself that gains the benefit from creating the external drama.

I was a year ago a part of an extremely dysfunctional, long-running game, where the GM had "every character is the protagonist of his own story" as his guiding principle. The game was Amber, and I feel that said principle was at least a part of the failure of the game for me. One can never say for sure, of course. Picture a game of nine (9) people with a GM absolutely convinced of benefits of immersionism and character protagonism (which for him meant largely "no plot"). What do you get, when you remove the nine-headed party beast, like you have to with Amber...?

Thaaaat's right, we all sat around twirling our thumbs for two hours at a time, waiting to get a turn with the GM. The game apparently worked for some players, based on how much time they used in there with the GM. I wouldn't know, because we never found out what any other player was really doing.

Now, one could say that the hard core immersionism was part of the problem, but for me it was more important that the GM really had no entertainment at all in mind. The game was "character protagonism" to the hilt, with me and only me deciding the story of my character. The GM even agreed to everything I wanted to do, so it was like I was writing a story about my character. No problems with that, but I prefer to do my writing with a text editor and a plan, not in strange little pieces of narrative to a "GM".

Another example that touches on the matter: I've been playing plenty of MLwM lately, and I have to say that that's one game that cannot be played with internalized drama, largely because there's nothing to do if you take the drama away. On the contrary, I've had to teach players to perform, as strange as that may sound, to get the game going. The other players are the audience.

These examples illustrate how immersionism in general and internalized drama in particular is in great danger of being extremely dull and useless. When there's no verbalization the drama is more alike to abstract pictoral art; feelings, no thought.

But to get on to your main question about the model, what kind of design would support this kind of internalized drama? My best guess is plain immersionist system, which largely means that GM decides everything. There's no serious immersionist games around afaIk but for Myrskyn Aika from Mike Pohjola. The tragedy is that it supports immersionism best when giving the standard "GM is always right" advice and worst in actual mechanics (pure setting/character sim).  I take this as a kind of a proof for the "GM decides" system. It seems that anything else will just get in the way of immersion, like the actors in a Japanese puppet show.

Of course you get even stronger immersionism (and stronger internalized drama, presumably) by larping it, which is a good reason for many immersionists being larpers. The better the props, the better you can really feel the feelings of the protagonist (which is what you mean by internalized drama, as I understand it). The ultimate would be virtual reality, where there's very little limitwise between internal drama and the player.

Consider this quote from the essay:

Quote from: John Kim in his essayFor the player, there are personal responsibilities as well as social responsibilities. For you the player to have emotional engagement, you must delve into the personal issues of her own PC. This does not mean mentally contemplating the character, it means taking actions which are personally meaningful to the character. By playing through the consequences of your choices, the story develops meaning for you.

This is as good a justification and definition for immersionism as any. For all intents and purposes it seems that what you have here is Nordic immersionism.

Quote from: Eero Tuovinen
Anyway, to say it in other words: when a play is enacted and identification with the protagonist occurs there is an important additional element to the process you haven't touched on. This is the effect of verbalization: the relevant feelings or issues that draw the audience are in the medium, not telepathically moved to the audience. This is a great gift for humanity, and I deem it the basis of the textual arts. When you remove this verbalization, as when internalizing drama, you remove a great deal of the point from the drama itself.

I would suggest rather that you remove the point of WITNESSING the drama, becuase it is invisible/inaudible.  But with RPG, that does not matter at all, becuase each players own drama is being witnessed by them in their heads.  This is the thrust of Johns argument as I understand it.

QuoteThaaaat's right, we all sat around twirling our thumbs for two hours at a time, waiting to get a turn with the GM. The game apparently worked for some players, based on how much time they used in there with the GM. I wouldn't know, because we never found out what any other player was really doing.

Again, I do not think this is the concept being raised; not that each character inhabits a DIFFERENT story, but rather, that the same or similar sequence of events experienced by all the characters resonates diffrently with each player due to their personal protagonistic relationship with their character.  Each character may have gone on the boat to the castle in an identical manner and together, but to each the others are supporting cast, and only their/my story is important.

QuoteThese examples illustrate how immersionism in general and internalized drama in particular is in great danger of being extremely dull and useless. When there's no verbalization the drama is more alike to abstract pictoral art; feelings, no thought.

I disagree violently.  Wailing on anothers coat-sleaves does not drama make.  For me, some of the most intense moments were also very private.  But this may be becuase I disagree that the article is prescriptive rather than descriptive - I am firmly convinced that this 'private drama' is quite widespread, and certainly accords with much play I have seen - and indeed, I made some efforts to defend dramatism as a fourth CA when I first arrived at the Forge.

QuoteOf course you get even stronger immersionism (and stronger internalized drama, presumably) by larping it, which is a good reason for many immersionists being larpers.

Again, I strongly disagree; I find full-bore immersion (as I understand the term) in the LARP context pretty much implausible for reasons probably too broad to discuss here.  the central point tho is that for LARPing is too intrusive for me to really enter the state of miond I would do if properly immersed.

Quote
The main reason drama can do anything to us is that it's presented in a clearer, purer medium than our day-to-day thoughts. The katharsis results from seeing your own issues given form. What you are calling internalized drama I'm calling everyday thought, and that's not so great a thing. A roleplayer perceives, is forced to perceive, the drama he creates when he gives it form.

And a real person is forced to perceive the drama they create when they act in the real world.  Yers this is everyday thought - but from the perspective of someone who has been laser-sharked, whose every day thought involved issues that are inherently dramatic (or possibly, epic): life, death, the fate of nations.  The catharsis is more profound when you experience it in the first person rather than seeing a representative character experience them, says the immersionist.

Quote from: contracycleWhat I would like to raise in response to that however is that in fact there is some role for these dramatic devices - but not in the dialogue between player and Gm, but rather in that between player and player.  Each player constitutes the others audience, and so for player A's activity to be minimally entertaining, player B must comprehend some of the dilemma with which player A is wrestling.  If player A is, well, a closed book, player B never appreciates their viewpoint or contribution becuase it is never visible.

In large part conventional RPG has resolved this problem by, IMO, essentially treating the group of players as a single protagonist, the multi-headed party beast.  

OK, I'm going to disagree with you here, because you are implying that anything other than the externalization of a protagonist's inner struggle is inherently boring to watch.  That has never been true in theater and it isn't true in RPGs, either.  Within the immersive story model described, for me as player, my own PC is the protagonist while other PCs and NPCs are non-protagonist characters.  As non-protagonist characters, they may be foils, rivals, antagonists, love interests, or many other things relative to the protagonist -- but they are not themselves protagonists.  

I agree with you that the group of PCs is a bizarre creature which doesn't have an direct parallel in conventional drama.  Within the immersive story model, the PC "party" is a set of intersecting stories -- not independent of each other, but not a single story either.  

Quote from: Eero TuovinenI was a year ago a part of an extremely dysfunctional, long-running game, where the GM had "every character is the protagonist of his own story" as his guiding principle. The game was Amber, and I feel that said principle was at least a part of the failure of the game for me. One can never say for sure, of course. Picture a game of nine (9) people with a GM absolutely convinced of benefits of immersionism and character protagonism (which for him meant largely "no plot"). What do you get, when you remove the nine-headed party beast, like you have to with Amber...?

Thaaaat's right, we all sat around twirling our thumbs for two hours at a time, waiting to get a turn with the GM.  
...
The game was "character protagonism" to the hilt, with me and only me deciding the story of my character. The GM even agreed to everything I wanted to do, so it was like I was writing a story about my character. No problems with that, but I prefer to do my writing with a text editor and a plan, not in strange little pieces of narrative to a "GM".

To me, this seems to confirm some accepted wisdom in RPGs -- at least within the immersive story model.  First, that the PCs should be a group which interacts, rather than each PC acting independently.  This was the thrust of Doctor Xero's recent thread on http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10344">Vision of Interaction and Vision of Independence Examined.  Second, 9 people is a lot for a tabletop game, and the most common seems to be 4 players and a GM.  

So one path to fixing this would be to keep the PCs independent, but make their stories more interesting to watch.  This one example of the storytelling model.  During each players turn in the spotlight, they should externalize more to make their story interesting to watch.  

Following the immersive story model, though, we would toss out the idea that it's OK for a player to mostly be watching.  The immersive story model suggests that the player's PC should be involved -- because that PC functions as a protagonist for him.  It's OK for there to be occaisional cut scenes without the protagonist, but in general the PC should be present to keep the player connected to the story.  

Quote from: Eero TuovinenA roleplayer perceives, is forced to perceive, the drama he creates when he gives it form. It's not just the other players (although they are important too) but he himself that gains the benefit from creating the external drama.
...
These examples illustrate how immersionism in general and internalized drama in particular is in great danger of being extremely dull and useless. When there's no verbalization the drama is more alike to abstract pictoral art; feelings, no thought.  

I wouldn't say abstract pictorial art -- but I would agree that it is in some ways more like pictorial art.  What is displayed on all sides is appearances, not necessarily the inner truths.  It lacks the verbalization of internal thought that you mention.  I think you're also right that it is more emotional and less analytical.  Still, I think you're missing the role of interaction.  A traditional drama is more than just a protagonist standing on the stage pouring out his inner struggles on the audience.  There are characters he interacts with, which form the framework of the drama.  These non-protagonist characters and the external conflict are vital to the process.  

Quote from: Eero TuovinenBut to get on to your main question about the model, what kind of design would support this kind of internalized drama? My best guess is plain immersionist system, which largely means that GM decides everything. There's no serious immersionist games around afaIk but for Myrskyn Aika from Mike Pohjola.  

Well, I'm not familiar with that game.  As far as I've seen, a GM isn't necessary, having played in a number of LARPs which did fine without one.  In fact, I find it intrusive on immersion for a GM to become involved in a LARP.  So while GM-decides can work, I don't think it's the only choice.  Obviously, forced externalization (i.e. visible stats for internal states like Humanity) isn't necessary for games in this model.  It may not be directly harmful to the process, but it isn't a support.  I'd be very hesitant to jump to any conclusions on this, since I think this is a very broad class of games and people's taste can vary.  

Quote from: Eero TuovinenThis is as good a justification and definition for immersionism as any. For all intents and purposes it seems that what you have here is Nordic immersionism.  

I tend to agree, but I haven't been directly involved in the Nordic scene so I'm hesitant to completely agree.  The real point is to bridge the gap between discussion using drama as a model, and the discussion of immersion.  For a long time, immersionism and/or simulationism have been seen as "anti-story" -- because their approach couldn't be fit into traditional dramatic models.  This essay was an attempt to bridge that gap, to show how the process that goes on in immersion relates to the process that goes on in static-media stories.

I thought that the Turku manifesto rejected the idea of even internal authoring. The player was to "become" the character, such that the experiences were as direct as possible, with as little metagame thought process as possible. Does this represent an extreme of the Nordic scene, or is there some acceptance there that play is dull even for the player of the character in question if there is no authoring of any sort going on?

Mike

Quote from: Mike HolmesI thought that the Turku manifesto rejected the idea of even internal authoring. The player was to "become" the character, such that the experiences were as direct as possible, with as little metagame thought process as possible. Does this represent an extreme of the Nordic scene, or is there some acceptance there that play is dull even for the player of the character in question if there is no authoring of any sort going on?

As far as I understand the manifesto, you are correct. It's written in rabid language, though, so it's possible that something less extreme is meant. Especially as the authors have tried to explain it as a lark ('though one where they mean the content, if not the form).

As to the relation of Turku school to general immersionism and other currents, my understanding is that most immersionists (meaning those who call themselves immersionist) do not subscribe to the manifest, at least fully. I'm not clear on the differences, though, and neither are they for the most part.

Anyway, if mr. Kim meant that the internalized drama would include authoring, that is, analytical structuring of the action, it gives things a somewhat different complexion. Authoring isn't possible without verbalization, you see, so an authored internal experience is for the player himself largely similar to an external one (except for the social dimension, of course). Implies things about my earlier writing.

So is it "I feel anguish for lost love" or is it "my character feels anguish for lost love"?

John,

It's a side-note to the current dialogue, but the thread is about your essay so I'll post here.

You make some initial remarks, remarks that I think are extremely important for framing what you're up to, about puppetry.  You mention the Japanese traditional puppet-art bunraku, which incidentally is only one of several such, and only a few hundred years old (just in case someone thought it was of great antiquity), though it is certainly the dominant one.  At any rate, you mention in passing that "the experience for the audience is arguably lessened by having the illusion broken."  Here, I think, you have gone astray, though I don't think it's your fault.  And from this, in my opinion, your argument goes a bit off the rails.

I would encourage you to read up on the question of "realism" in drama, particularly (if you can find anything) in puppetry.  One of the guiding aesthetics of bunraku is that precisely because some elements of the "real" are annulled, other elements come naturally to the fore.  You might think of this like a person who loses a leg: there's an old notion that that person becomes much stronger in his upper body because of the absence.  This is exactly what happens in several traditional Japanese arts: you remove one element in order to strengthen the rest, rather as though you had a given quantity of water and kept stopping up bits of a vast alchemical system of beakers and alembics.

For example, the visual aesthetic of some Japanese painting forms also emphasizes the use of negative space, of space in which nothing happens, as a way of emphasizing what happens in the other spaces by contrast.  Similarly, in the dramatic art of No [read with macron], you eliminate vast regions of realism -- facial expression, ordinary movement, spontaneity, set design, props (in a realistic sense), and so forth.  Part of the idea is that by eliminating all this, you force the audience to focus on the one thing that (in No) matters, which is the emotional intensity of the dominant character.  As a way of helping guide us, there is a secondary character who elucidates and brings out the emotional force, and usually in terms of plot is the entering factor that causes the emotional force to manifest.

So for RPG's, this suggests that precisely the lack of immersion and realism in that sense can be used to create greater power in stories.  For example, MLwM creates its effects and its drama by eliminating whole vast ranges of possible emotions and actions from the minion-PCs.  This gives them a limited range of things to consider seriously, and arguably produces the desired effects in that fashion.

I'm not suggesting a subtractive theory of gaming, or anything, but that your theory of immersive storytelling seems necessarily to eliminate some aspects of the possibilities of gaming.  It seems to me that one of the reasons No is not very popular here in the West is that we don't know what is supposed to be eliminated, so we don't know how to focus attention.  If you had a game that deliberately eliminated aspects and make explicit what the tradeoffs were, you would have a powerful potential for interesting storytelling, whether immersive or otherwise.

It's worth remembering that the founders of No as a form were insistent that the man behind the mask does not live his character.  It's as far from Stanislawski as possible: over-identification destroys characterization and power.  I see these as equal possibilities.

Like Eero, I don't think you're constructing a proscriptive model, telling everyone how they ought to game.  But it seems to me that your use of puppetry wants to pull in a quite different direction than you want it to.

Quote from: Eero TuovinenAnyway, if mr. Kim meant that the internalized drama would include authoring, that is, analytical structuring of the action, it gives things a somewhat different complexion. Authoring isn't possible without verbalization, you see, so an authored internal experience is for the player himself largely similar to an external one (except for the social dimension, of course). Implies things about my earlier writing.

So is it "I feel anguish for lost love" or is it "my character feels anguish for lost love"?  

Well, in my essay, I don't make any distinction between these two.  I only distinguished based on the observable distinction of internal vs external.  However, when you bring this up, the only answer I have is "both" or "neither".  

Within traditional stories, the whole point of dramatic structure and the protagonist role is for the audience to emotionally identify with the protagonist.  They are never wholly unaware that the character is different from their real selves.  However, they also experience emotions corresponding to the character's via psychological projection.  If a player entirely lost the distinction, then she would actually swing a sword rather than saying so.  Conversely, though, if the player feels no identification, the story would have no emotional power for them.  

I guess you can define a spectrum with no emotional identification at one end (i.e. purely analytical "authorship") and complete takeover at the other end (i.e. multiple-personality disorder).  I would say that traditional drama idealizes an in-between point, and rejects both extremes.  This is true of both audience and author.  Real written authors are not purely analytical -- they will often speak of characters taking on a life of their own, and of their dreams and feelings flowing into their writings.

Quote from: John Kim
Well, in my essay, I don't make any distinction between these two.  I only distinguished based on the observable distinction of internal vs external.  However, when you bring this up, the only answer I have is "both" or "neither".  

Wow, somehow we've got a statement here that I think that the Usenet tradition (represented here by John), the Nordic tradition (represented by Eero), and the Forge tradition (myself), all agree on.

I'm flabbergasted. :-)

Mike

Quote from: clehrichAt any rate, you mention in passing that "the experience for the audience is arguably lessened by having the illusion broken."  Here, I think, you have gone astray, though I don't think it's your fault.  And from this, in my opinion, your argument goes a bit off the rails.

I would encourage you to read up on the question of "realism" in drama, particularly (if you can find anything) in puppetry.  One of the guiding aesthetics of bunraku is that precisely because some elements of the "real" are annulled, other elements come naturally to the fore.

Hmmm.  OK, this seems like a visceral reaction to me, because your point sounds very much like what I say in the next line.  What I say more completely is:

QuoteHowever, the experience for the audience is arguably lessened by having the illusion broken.  I would say that neither style is inherently better.  Greater expression allows better stories, but the distraction of visible manipulators detracts from the story.

It's expressed in different language, but I think the point is the same.  There is a trade-off here.  You do lose something, I would argue, from having visible manipulators.  Saying otherwise means that Western puppetry is simply an inferior form.  However, you gain greater expression.  This seems functionally equivalent to your analogy that eliminating some elements brings others to the fore.  

Quote from: clehrichSo for RPG's, this suggests that precisely the lack of immersion and realism in that sense can be used to create greater power in stories.  For example, MLwM creates its effects and its drama by eliminating whole vast ranges of possible emotions and actions from the minion-PCs.  This gives them a limited range of things to consider seriously, and arguably produces the desired effects in that fashion.

I'm not suggesting a subtractive theory of gaming, or anything, but that your theory of immersive storytelling seems necessarily to eliminate some aspects of the possibilities of gaming.

I agree completely.  As I think you know, I'm not saying that immersive story is the "one true way" or anything like that.  There are plenty of good games which don't follow this paradigm.  Just like traditional Aristotilean drama isn't the "one true way" to do theater.  However, I think it is important to understand how Aristotilean drama works.  In my essay, I'm trying to bridge the gap between understanding of story in static media and immersive story in RPGs.

Quote from: John Kim
OK, I'm going to disagree with you here, because you are implying that anything other than the externalization of a protagonist's inner struggle is inherently boring to watch.  That has never been true in theater and it isn't true in RPGs, either.

Hmm, I'm inclined to disagree with that, it is precisely thre theatre analogy I was thinking of.  An actor standing flat-footed on the stage cogitating without expression is indeed boring to watch.  A character with exaggerated make-up and broad body language is much more expressive and much more interesting to watch.

I do agree that from the perspective of the individual player enjoying their protagonist role, the other characters primarily exist as supporting cast.  But I also think that players are not solipsysts, and that the collective joy of the game arises in part from appreciation of the others players personal story too, as it were.  This requires some degree of expression, exposition, on the part of the player, even for them to function as supporting characters.

I suppose you might say that I feel players have a duty to other players to express their characters to one another, to actively support and contribute to the shared inmaginary space.

Quote from: contracycleI do agree that from the perspective of the individual player enjoying their protagonist role, the other characters primarily exist as supporting cast.  But I also think that players are not solipsysts, and that the collective joy of the game arises in part from appreciation of the others players personal story too, as it were.  This requires some degree of expression, exposition, on the part of the player, even for them to function as supporting characters.

I suppose you might say that I feel players have a duty to other players to express their characters to one another, to actively support and contribute to the shared inmaginary space.

OK, our positions seem similar.  However, you imply that I am advocating no expression on the part of other characters, which is completely opposite from my position.  I think our difference here is that you are suggesting that supporting cast function as sort of "mini-protagonists".  In contrast, I feel that a supporting cast member has a different function than a protagonist -- still an active and expressive role, but of a different type.  

The immersive story paradigm suggests a different kind of expression for the player.  Rather than projecting your own PC's issues outward to another player, your duty to another player is to help them along with their PC's story.  For example, your PC might be a dramatic foil who serves as a contrast to the other PC's issues.  This is different than trying to be a protagonist.  A foil doesn't require sympathy or understanding.  It does require believability and expression and depth, however.

John Kim wrote:

QuoteThe immersive story paradigm suggests a different kind of expression for the player. Rather than projecting your own PC's issues outward to another player, your duty to another player is to help them along with their PC's story. For example, your PC might be a dramatic foil who serves as a contrast to the other PC's issues. This is different than trying to be a protagonist. A foil doesn't require sympathy or understanding. It does require believability and expression and depth, however.

I've only read your essay once, so I may have missed something, but... to your point above... wouldn't it be the player's responsibility to do BOTH in an immersive RPG play session?  Similar to the the reality of players being both author and audience in an RPG... shouldn't the player do both, express their own PC's issues outward AND help other players with their PC?  Be both protagonist and supporting cast (and in some games antagonist) all at once.  

You might say that consciously moving between these roles would pull someone out of their immersion, but I don't see how that would be any more or less immersive that thinking "How does my character provide a supporting or antagonistic role in the creation of the other guy's story?"

All these modes of thought require at least a piece of the players mind being in a distanced and analytical position to look at the "whole story" being created... which to my mind is antithetical to true immersion.  Wouldn't true immersion be "getting into character" so much you forget you are a character, and thus, just as in real life I don't think to myself, "How will my next action reflect a dramatic foil to my coworker" I would never think that while in an immersionist game?