[Note - This article has been translated from the one available in the French section : Immersion vs Simulation by Daniel Bonvoisin , it was originally a test article to fill some section but we left it for posterity]

This article must be replaced in its context, being a discussion. Our group (The Cell) meets every month to discuss about larp. The question arose among other topics : “Can one be in immersion when dealing with simulation rules ?”

The player makes his character behave according to the ways of application of a simulation rule that requires active management of non diegetic parameters. Meaning : at the /x/ time, the parameters taken into account by the player to carry out an action do not come from the game context anymore but from non diegetic clauses of achievement that replace the diegesis, even though their very effects take place within the diegesis.

Counting blows, slipping a marble into someone’s bag, rolling the dice to settle the success of an operation are examples of non diegetic actions. They call upon a system of failure/success that is beyond the sphere of the game ; consequently, the player must be aware of that system and of its parameters to perform an action.

Even though he would have a great power of abstraction (I would define the power of abstraction as the ability to set aside all non diegetic elements) and feel the action for what it means in the game, he nevertheless has to act according to a process that is foreign to the game, foreign to its context ; in short, foreign to the virtual reality he is currently standing in (the diegesis defined above).

So, regarding the explanation my gentle colleagues urged me to produce, I mean that, according to me, a moment in the game that calls upon a simulation rule implying the consideration of non diegetic elements cannot be rated as a « pure » immersionist moment.

At that /x/ moment, the player (whose aim is immersionist) appeals to his power of abstraction to set aside the non diegetic elements and not anymore to the diegesis-induced reactions (the immersionist instinct).

I hear you say : what is the interest of this clarification ? I think we can raise the question about the nature of an action in the game. Is it authentic (it is only driven by diegetic elements) and, in that way, genuine (the player himself acts truly, he does not pretend to act), or, on the contrary, is it simulated, existing only on non diegetic modalities ?

Let’s take an example : Jules is crying because Agnar, Laurent’s character, is dead. Jules is really sad about Agnar’s death. It is genuine ; it is only diegesis that makes Jules cry.

On the other hand, simulated act, Jules decides not to push Agnar - Laurent’s character, also being the deadly ennemy of Jules’ character Gnurf - into a chasm, because the safety rules prevent it. Jules then uses the simulation rule « apply a sticker ‘deadly fall’ on target », takes his sticker out and fixes it on Agnar/Laurent’s cape. Agnar dies according to the rule. But the way the action was carried out is non diegetic. Jules did not act as he would have if he had to push Laurent into the chasm. At that very moment, he did not act according to the diegesis (even though the decision to push Agnar into the chasm was justified by diegetic elements).

This was a quick explanation of my concern about attaching importance to the player’s action and to its classification.

Comments (0)

Show/Hide comments

Write comment Show/Hide comment form

Name

Title

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment