revisiting old material
During my interview prep, I was rereading my dissertation and my chapter in immersive gameplay, and started reflecting on my conclusions from both.
In my dissertation, I suggested an continum from self play at one end (playing yourself, altered) and archetype play (playing a pure archetype), with play occuring somewhere between the extremes on that axis. Self play corelates with bleed-in and archetype play with bleed-out. This also suggests the more you try to get one type of bleed, the less you get of the other.
I reflected on the jeep 'playing close to home' tradition with paper-thin characters (also true of my own psychodrama scenarios). Playing GR (for example) causes high bleed-out, but claims to be close to home. On reflection, I don't think it is close to home as it claims. It's 'role play' (in the sense of playing a social role) rather than character play, just as Stanford prison was. Players aren't really playing close to home, they are playing archetypal attacker/victim roles.
In my chapter I use somewhat different terms. A weak frame (psychological) results in situational immersion, a strong frame results in character immersion, a very strong frame results in repressed/taboo play. Also, A weak (social) circle results in bleed-in, a weak (psycholoigcal) frame results in bleed-out.
Looking at that together:
A high bleed-in state would imply:
- the circle is weak. (a pervasive larp where you play yourself in the real world is an example of this as a design choice).
- self play (characters are close to players).
A high bleed-out state would inply:
- the frame is weak and therefore also
- archetypal/situational play. Playing a social role.
In my dissertation, I suggested an continum from self play at one end (playing yourself, altered) and archetype play (playing a pure archetype), with play occuring somewhere between the extremes on that axis. Self play corelates with bleed-in and archetype play with bleed-out. This also suggests the more you try to get one type of bleed, the less you get of the other.
I reflected on the jeep 'playing close to home' tradition with paper-thin characters (also true of my own psychodrama scenarios). Playing GR (for example) causes high bleed-out, but claims to be close to home. On reflection, I don't think it is close to home as it claims. It's 'role play' (in the sense of playing a social role) rather than character play, just as Stanford prison was. Players aren't really playing close to home, they are playing archetypal attacker/victim roles.
In my chapter I use somewhat different terms. A weak frame (psychological) results in situational immersion, a strong frame results in character immersion, a very strong frame results in repressed/taboo play. Also, A weak (social) circle results in bleed-in, a weak (psycholoigcal) frame results in bleed-out.
Looking at that together:
A high bleed-in state would imply:
- the circle is weak. (a pervasive larp where you play yourself in the real world is an example of this as a design choice).
- self play (characters are close to players).
A high bleed-out state would inply:
- the frame is weak and therefore also
- archetypal/situational play. Playing a social role.