[MUD-Dev] 3rd Axis for Bartle's 2 axis theory of MUD players

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

"Richard A. Bartle" <richard at mud.co.uk> writes:

>   (Linking virtual worlds to Hinduism seems to be in vogue at
>   present!)

(Due to the word "Avatar" and whatever that evokes in people's
minds, I suppose...?)

>> I view flow as a model of the process behind having a good
>> experience.

> Well it's a model of A process, if not THE process.

I think he is trying to describe the core process(es) that supports
what he calls "optimal experience" ("good experience" was the wrong
term), which is being in flow.

> I know what it is, but "good experience" and "immersion" are
> orthogonal concepts.

Well, substitute "good" with "optimal" and I am not convinced. I
think they correlate (in virtual worlds)

>> What I am saying (or trying to say) is that in virtual worlds
>> flow/immersion are strongly related (and therefore immersion in
>> the virtual world is the same as flow)

> Leaving and arriving are strongly related, but they're not the
> same.

Hehe, nice try, but the wrong analogy. No, I am suggesting that
landing and arriving is pretty much the same thing if you are in a
plane.

> I have no problem in agreeing that for some people, flow is a
> means of achieving immersion. However, I'd need to know what
> particular mechanisms of flow you were saying were essential for
> immersion before I could comment on it.  I don't see that flow is
> at all necessary for immersion, but if you only mean some
> mechanisms of flow then I guess that might fit in more with what I
> mean by it.

The core mechanism, as I see it, is that you believe (or feel) that
what you "do" (possibly mentally) has the potential of bringing the
situation under "control". I.e. you "believe" (not rationally, but
emotionally) that you may be in charge if you "focus on" whatever it
is you are doing. Whether you actually are in charge or not, does
not matter (say, on a roller-coaster).

I think this is in essence what keep a user in full immersion.
Sustained and intense immersion is what I assume we talk about when
we just use the word "immersion" in this discussion. Granted you may
be somewhat immersed into whatever is happening on TV even if it
just is some dull debate with an audience, as you identify with the
audience (I am one of them), but not the kind of full and engaging
immersion you presumably would want in a virtual world.

> Yes, although immersion is just a means of achieving this. Spend
> long enough being someone else and eventually both versions of you
> will coincide.  Immersion makes this possible.

Well... depends. If I am roleplaying then hopefully it won't. Not
sure what the exact implications of what you are saying is...

>> a roleplayer would immerse himself into the world by temporarily
>> activating the virtual personality in a flow like fashion

> I don't use flow at all when I'm role-playing. The way I do it is
> to set up like a mental buffer between me and the character I'm
> role-playing. I think like I'm me, filter what I want to do
> through the buffer, and out of the other side comes the
> action. It's like an automatic translation system.  I can switch
> from one role to another in an instant.

Well, ok, I do both, but when I am truly immersed I have
internalized the character values and rules and don't have to think
about them anymore. I am then capable of bypassing the translation
stage, although I also tap into this less-immersed state in parallel
by surveying the environment for opportunities for intense
interaction (say, conflicts, people to annoy or whatever). So it is
a lot more complicated than what I have suggested so far. I think we
have discussed that extensively on mud-dev in the past, though.

(Fully covering "optimal roleplay" would be very complex, so some
simplification is needed in this discussion, I believe.)

Would you say that you are immersed? And if so, why?

> Oh, I should say that I mean role-playing here in the sense of
> attempting to portray a defined character, rather than the
> "softer"

As in assuming a personality and working with the constraints of the
world, or determining (staging) an outcome for your character which
you make happen? (I.e. today my character is going to commit suicide
by drowning in front of an outraged audience).

>> What I need in order to be convinced that I am wrong is a good
>> example of immersion into a virtual world where you cannot apply
>> the concept of flow.

> Your careful use of "virtual" there might be a way in. You accept
> that flow doesn't happen as a matter of course in the real world,
> in which people are fully immersed by default. Does it not follow,
> therefore, that a sufficiently convincing virtual world would be
> just as immersive but would not need any flow to support it? Or
> are you saying that for a world to achieve that degree of
> convincingness it would effectively be part of reality anyway, so
> flow would be unnecessary?

I believe that the visual subsystem of human beings is very
sensitive, which makes it near impossible to "suspend disbelief" by
static perceptional cues alone. I tried to illustrate this with
getting a new pair of glasses (I am nearsighted). I am less immersed
into the real world when I get new ones, because of the small
optical differences which the subsystem is not yet adapted
to. Whether you may be able to immerse yourself solely on perception
alone given ideal technology is an open question. I don't know if
sensory stimulation is enough to "suspend disbelief". You might need
more in order to keep that disbelief out of your mind. That is, the
world may have be sufficiently demanding on order to push out
physical world concerns.

>> Daydreaming in a virtual world, would either be immersed
>> roleplaying or it would be daydreaming in the physical world.

> All I can say is that I've been immersed in a virtual world and
> have daydreamed while immersed, and when I came out of it I was
> still immersed - I didn't need to reimmerse myself.

Hm. Ok, I've been immersed into the following situation in AO: my
female character is sitting in the lake (with a swimming suit)
besides her sister for hours (!) watching the sun rise and set over
and over.  Then talking in a dreamily fashion of what is going on
around, imagining the desert and people being in it and so on. Is
that close to what you are talking about? I would personally
consider myself in a roleplay-flow situation, looking for hooks to
play on in order to maintain flow and slowing down my own mind to a
drowsy kind of mode. If there were no hooks (like tracing the sun) I
would let my character "dream" about what was beyond the horizon...

So, I do maybe three things in this situation to stay immersed. 1. I
reduce the available cognitive resources by slowing down my
thoughts. 2. I fill up the rest of my brain with items in the
landscape which I let my character think about or talk
about. (Mostly inane smalltalk) 3. I spend energy on _feeling_, I
open up for feelings (and associations) to constantly flow up to my
mind (which currently is in the mode of the character).

When roleplaying I believe I spend a lot of focus on keeping this
channel of feelings open... which is what I feel to be
roleplay-flow.

> I think this may be where I take issue. For me, it's the other way
> around: ignoring all that stuff makes flow possible, but flow
> doesn't make ignoring it possible. Simple concentration allows for
> ignoring selected sensory stimuli, you don't need flow (unless by
> "flow" you actually mean "concentration").

Yes, being in a state of flow is what comes from sustained
concentration. Or, rather, the belief that what you "do" possibly
does or will matter in the situation at hand. (Which is different
from deciding to keep on staring at some particular item for
instance.)  Concentrating on something that is known to be beyond or
below your capability is not likely to produce flow. Flow is more
likely to occur in an assumed feedback-loop which one pays attention
to. I.e. you are "convinced" that you are or are about to be
receiving signs that verify your capability of being able to bring
the situation under control. Or something like that.

--
Ola - http://folk.uio.no/olag/

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