[MUD-Dev] Levels of immersion

[olag at ifi.uio.no]

--<cut>--
Note: This message was written via the list web archives.  There is
no guarantee that the claimed author is actually the author.
--<cut>--
Original message: http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev-L/2000Q4/msg00440.php

On Fri,  8 Dec 2000 23:20:19 -0800 (PST)
"Richard A. Bartle" <richard at mud.co.uk> wrote:

> heart by players on their personal web sites. The academics have the
> weight of formal paradigm on their side, but they don't always
> understand the true nature of what they're describing; the players

*smirk*

> An "avatar" is a player's representative in a world. It's really
> just a puppet. It does as it's told, it reports what happens to it,
> and it acts as a general conduit for the player and the world to
> interact. It may or may not have some graphical representation, it
> may or may not have a name. It refers to itself as a separate entity
> and communicates with the player as such: "I can't open the
> door". It's a mere convenience, a tool.

I'd say that the "avatar" is the mediator. The symbol which enables
you to communicate with other people, and which conveys a sense of
location/presence to the user.

> Contrast this with a "character". A character is a player's
> representation in a world.

This I disagree with. The avatar is the representation. The character
is the intent which you try to impose on the avatar.  (badly worded)
Your interpretation, or the interpretation which you want other users
to adopt.

> You can feel quite upset if one of your characters dies. "Aw no,
> they killed Huey! Poor little guy..."

Well, if you are able to think about the "poor little guy" then you
probably was not immersed...

I believe a roleplayer will switch between the "I am the character"
"that is the character" modes. I think you have to, in order to
roleplay well...

Kinda like starting out with an idea (stereotypes) of what the
character should be like, then trying to communicate those ideas but
still feeling distant, then immersing yourself into it (internalizing
the character). So it is a "I am the character, but I am not the
character" thing...?

> A persona is a player, in a world. Any separate distinction of
> character has gone - the player IS the character. You're not role-
> playing a being, you ARE that being; you're not assuming an
> identity, you ARE that identity. If you lose a fight, you don't feel
> that your character has died, you feel that YOU have died. There's
> no level of indirection: YOU are THERE.

Not sure if my interpretation of "personae" is different from yours.
You tell me. To me the distinction between personae and character is a
matter of intent. "Personae" is what you get when you don't pretend to
roleplay. So other users assume it is representative of your
personality.

(Do this consistently and you'll probably not be sure of what the
"real you" is either... We've all got a personality repertory which is
much bigger than what we get to portray in everyday life)

> [Original text at http://www.mud2.co.uk/Articles/richard_article.htm]

(the article's date doesn't state the year it was written...)

Ola.

_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev