D&D General The History of 'Immersion' in RPGs

D&D historian Jon Peterson has taken a look at the concept of 'immersion' as it related to tabletop roleplaying games, with references to the concept going back to The Wild Hunt (1977), D&D modules like In Search of the Unknown, games like Boot Hill, and Forgotten Realms creator Ed Greenwood speaking in Dragon Magazine.

Immersion and Role Playing in the 1970s

The idea that role playing involved a property called "immersion" occurred to the early adopters of the 1970s fairly early. The earliest e...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

 

[Mannahnin]

First, I would flat-out never play in or run a game using meta-mechanics like Inspiration or Fate Points. Talk about immersion-breaking! (yes there's meta-mechanics in 1e as written, e.g. good roleplay reduces your training time/costs, but I threw those out before I started DMing and haven't regretted doing so for a second)

Not to derail, as you guys seem to be having a solid conversation, but I might step in to note that the first meta-mechanic I'm aware of is the Saving Throw, and we all take it as granted. This mechanic really only exists for the purpose of emulating heroic fiction. The way Gary describes it in the 1E DMG is pretty darn explicit about what it is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not to derail, as you guys seem to be having a solid conversation, but I might step in to note that the first meta-mechanic I'm aware of is the Saving Throw, and we all take it as granted. This mechanic really only exists for the purpose of emulating heroic fiction. The way Gary describes it in the 1E DMG is pretty darn explicit about what it is.

I'll go as far as to suggest that, as presented in D&D and its derivatives, hit points are effectively a meta-mechanic. It clearly operates more as a pacing mechanism to deal with injury rather than injury itself, and this becomes more clear the more you get into issues of how it works regarding various non-weapon attack issues.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'll go as far as to suggest that, as presented in D&D and its derivatives, hit points are effectively a meta-mechanic. It clearly operates more as a pacing mechanism to deal with injury rather than injury itself, and this becomes more clear the more you get into issues of how it works regarding various non-weapon attack issues.

But the issue is you take damage to you HP when you get hit. So it effectively does both what Gary says and clearly some portion of it is real actual damage your character is taking. You can handwave it, but the reaction to that when they tried to do so in 4E, shows that for some players, it is going to present an issue. I think it is just one of those mechanics that it largely depends on how players come to see it through use at the table.

 

[Mannahnin]

Hit points are an abstraction, but I'm not sure they really constitute a meta-mechanic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But the issue is you take damage to you HP when you get hit. So it effectively does both what Gary says and clearly some portion of it is real actual damage your character is taking. You can handwave it, but the reaction to that when they tried to do so in 4E, shows that for some players, it is going to present an issue. I think it is just one of those mechanics that it largely depends on how players come to see it through use at the table.

I'll buy that some portion of it is damage, but there appears to be considerably more going on there, and I'd argue that at least part of that is a metamechanic, as I said, to control pacing.

Hit points are an abstraction, but I'm not sure they really constitute a meta-mechanic.

Hit points in things like BRP are an abstraction (and in almost any game that uses them), but I think the level-elevating hit points in things like D&D go beyond being just an abstraction; I should note that one of the biggest functions some basic metamechanic point systems do is allow you to reduce damage, and the level escalating hit points in such systems do pretty much the same thing, just baking them in. You can argue that they're less intrusive because they don't actually require any decision to employ them, but I've seen them produce exactly the same immersion breaking effects on some people because of how disconnected with the in-world event they are.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yeah, a fair point, that. At least at higher levels.

 

[Lanefan]

Not to derail, as you guys seem to be having a solid conversation, but I might step in to note that the first meta-mechanic I'm aware of is the Saving Throw, and we all take it as granted. This mechanic really only exists for the purpose of emulating heroic fiction. The way Gary describes it in the 1E DMG is pretty darn explicit about what it is.

Perhaps, but in many cases the results are quite justifiable in the fiction - your body resists the poison, the spell just doesn't work on you this time, you were able to duck-and-cover just as the fireball hit - and those I can live with just fine.

I'll freely admit, though, that there's times where giving a save just makes no sense but the game demands I do it anyway; and those do bug me.

 

[Lanefan]

I'll go as far as to suggest that, as presented in D&D and its derivatives, hit points are effectively a meta-mechanic. It clearly operates more as a pacing mechanism to deal with injury rather than injury itself, and this becomes more clear the more you get into issues of how it works regarding various non-weapon attack issues.

Two things here.

First, if one sees hit points as always including at least some minor "meat" component, the fictional results hold up. Failing that, incoroprate a body-fatigue points system where the body points are mostly (or all) meat and the fatigue points are just nicks, bruises, and - yes - fatigue; and it still holds up.

Second, it's IMO a serious flaw of 5e design that many things have been converted into straight hit-point damage that shouldn't have been. Poison, disintegrate, various other save-or-suck or save-or-die elements now just do h.p. damage, where their effects really should bypass hit points and do something else entirely (e.g. kill you, or make you sick, or get you really high, or whatever).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Two things here.

First, if one sees hit points as always including at least some minor "meat" component, the fictional results hold up. Failing that, incoroprate a body-fatigue points system where the body points are mostly (or all) meat and the fatigue points are just nicks, bruises, and - yes - fatigue; and it still holds up.

Second, it's IMO a serious flaw of 5e design that many things have been converted into straight hit-point damage that shouldn't have been. Poison, disintegrate, various other save-or-suck or save-or-die elements now just do h.p. damage, where their effects really should bypass hit points and do something else entirely (e.g. kill you, or make you sick, or get you really high, or whatever).

You might want to stick to your 1e perspective (which I've been enjoying in our exchange upthread, to be honest) rather than try to critique an edition (5e) that you have much less experience with (at least that's the impression you've given me on these forums and your "Second" here reinforces that conclusion). While it's true that save-or-die is largely gone, you just are a bit off-base on your assessment of poison (there is the poisoned condition), disintegrate (while it is dialed back, it still disintegrates the target if it would reduce the target to 0 hp), and plenty of other spells/monster abilities that are more than just HP-reduction-variants: Otto's Irresistible Dance (with NO save!), Tasha's Hideous Laughter, Sickening Radiance, and other spells/monster abilities that blind, deafen, paralyze, petrify, charm, restrain, stun, incapacitate, etc. So, yeah, save-or-suck is alive and well in 5e you'll be glad to hear, or so I hope you'd be glad to hear. But, I'll concede that there's no level drain - so you can lord that over us 5e-ers, if you like.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I suspect your style of DMing relies far more on mechanical resolution than does mine. For example, I rather dislike so-called social-encounter mechanics and try to avoid them whenever possible...which means those encounters are resolved through roleplay at the table. Thus, there's no mechanics arising where that -1 or +3 can make a difference.

I only use the mechanics when the situation calls for it (in 5e that is: a chance for success, a chance for failure, and a meaningful consequence to failure). Otherwise good faith roleplaying with reasonably specificity of what the PC is doing and what they are trying to accomplish will often get the job done (or not get the job done, as the case may be).

Maybe. I'm one who - perhaps a bit controversially - sees the spotlight as something to be competed for, within reason, and therefore one is not necessarily being a jerk by simply trying to get it. Put another way, I'd far rather be in a game where everyone always wants the spotlight and I have to fight for it than a game where nobody wants it; and I've been in both.

This seems, on one level, to conflict with the idea of D&D as a cooperative game. On the other hand, I enjoy when players are super into it and unintentionally hogging the spotlight. Part of my job, as the 5e DM, is to lean into the enthusiasm and also spread that spotlight around. Part of the player's role is to also recognize they are part of the team and dial it back sometimes to let their party-mates enjoy the limelight.

But yeah, the other end of the spectrum where no one wants the spotlight... [shudder]... as a DM I would feel like my game is sucking. Downward spiral!

If someone's not willing to compete for the spotlight and enjoys a more passive experience, that's fine too - unless the whole table's that way; in which case the DM has to put on her engineer's cap and fire up the locomotive...

Love this visual!


EDIT TO ADD: I guess we might be able to come to some consensus around roleplaying and immersion: Someone - be it a player or a DM - disregarding the rules of roleplaying, whether explicitly stated in the rule books for the version being played or as stated by the table rules, will surely break immersion. Fair enough?