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

 

[Lanefan]

I’m not sure I understand why it needs to be “locked in”.

Patterns and precedent.

I mean, it’s locked in to the extent that that’s what happened. If something different starts happening, then that creates some new fiction about the character. Maybe she’s not as dumb as we all thought.

My point is that after a certain time there comes a point where if something different starts happening it not so much new fiction as it is a violation of established pattern and precedent.

 

[Lanefan]

More immersive than what, though? I think there's a difference between making decisions based on what I think my character would do (which I don't find very immersive at all) and making decisions as my character. Is that the sort of difference you have in mind?

I see those as being pretty much the same thing, in that either way I'm making the decision the character would make even if it's not the decision I-as-player might want it to make.

All I can say is I agree with @Campbell's statement up-thread (if I'm remembering/paraphrasing correctly) that any perceived discrepancy between my character as established by in-game events and what's written on the character sheet should be settled in favor of the former.

With one exception, I'd rather there be no reason to perceive a discrepancy in the first place. Play to what's on the sheet, more or less, and all is good.

The one exception is alignment. You can write whatever letters you want on your character sheet under 'alignment' but its your actions in play that'll determine what your alignment really is, should somebody or something detect for such.

Would you say that, in your games, and seeing that this thread is in the D&D forum, that this is seen as an unstated rule of the game?

Qualified yes. It's likely not a stated thing for a few reasons: one, to state it in writing would cause a tidal wave of arguments based on exactly how they wrote and defined what each number in each stat might represent; and two, because the designers probably feel like this using one's character sheet as a guide to role-play is so obvious a statement that it really doesn't need to be said.

It certainly isn't in my games, but I think if it were a rule or had some mechanical backing in the rules, I might be more tolerant of it as a resolution process. For instance, if I as a player had to succeed on an Intelligence check for my character to make the "come up with a plan" move, I wouldn't find it nearly as un-immersive as trying to gauge my character's plan making to its Intelligence score.

It goes beyond simple intelligence, though. Charisma, persuasiveness, wisdom, bonds-traits-flaws, background - all of these things* inform one's roleplaying, and they're right there on the character sheet.

* - or, where such exist, equivalents in other non-D&D systems.

 

[Hussar]

I think people are more concerned with doing what they want to do or what they think they should do. I mean, who makes decisions by thinking about themselves and what type of person they are and then asking themselves what that type of person would do?

I would say that the bolded sentence is the heart of roleplay. IOW, that is how I judge good roleplay all the time. If the player is simply playing him or herself, regardless of whatever character they are playing, they're pretty much not roleplaying at all.

To put it another way, how can you be considered to be roleplaying if you're not actually playing a role? And, a role is almost always someone who is not you. (Note, that there are RPG's where you play yourself, but, that's not what we're talking about here) If your decision making process for your character only takes into account your personal goals and whatnot, then, well, you're not roleplaying.

I am not my character. I take great pains to differentiate my character from me as much as I can. The degree of success is judged by how well I can portray that character at the table without the players engaging me, the other player, instead of the character that I am portraying.

 

[Lanefan]

I would say that the bolded sentence is the heart of roleplay. IOW, that is how I judge good roleplay all the time. If the player is simply playing him or herself, regardless of whatever character they are playing, they're pretty much not roleplaying at all.

In fairness to @Hriston , I don't really think that's what he's getting at.

As far as I can tell, he's speaking of a differentiation between these two things:

1 - Thinking as Hussar-the-player, perhaps with reference to other things e.g. the character sheet "What does my character do next?"
2 - Thinking as the character without reference to the character sheet or to anything else "What do I do next?"

In the second option the "I" refers to the character as the player is no longer thinking of "I" as the person sitting at the table.

I don't really differentiate between these two options as the in-play result (ideally) ends up pretty much the same: the character does whatever the character reasonably would do, sometimes regardless of what its player might think is best or most optimal in the moment (this discrepancy between player preference and actual character action comes up most often when playing low-wisdom types). Hriston sees the differentiation between 1 and 2 as much more significant, I think, hence our discussion.

 

[clearstream]

To put it another way, how can you be considered to be roleplaying if you're not actually playing a role? And, a role is almost always someone who is not you. (Note, that there are RPG's where you play yourself, but, that's not what we're talking about here) If your decision making process for your character only takes into account your personal goals and whatnot, then, well, you're not roleplaying.

Playing a role can include playing yourself in the role of an eldritch knight in a fantastical world, right? You pose yourself the escapist challenge "What if I lived in that world? How would I act?" You follow the kinds of motivations you feel you would yourself form were you in that world.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am not my character. I take great pains to differentiate my character from me as much as I can. The degree of success is judged by how well I can portray that character at the table without the players engaging me, the other player, instead of the character that I am portraying.

I think the difference is that there's a difference between your character becoming you (token play) and you becoming your character (immersion). My objection to some posters is that they don't seem to think internalizing the defined traits of the character (including the parts on the character sheet) as particularly necessesary, and I can't get on board that.

 

[Lanefan]

Playing a role can include playing yourself in the role of an eldritch knight in a fantastical world, right? You pose yourself the escapist challenge "What if I lived in that world? How would I act?" You follow the kinds of motivations you feel you would yourself form were you in that world.

Which, in a stat-less game, would be great!

However, D&D (along with many other systems) has stats that lay out in more or less general terms a character's physical and mental (and in a few cases, spiritual) capabilities in relation to other inhabitants of the setting, and even if it's not hard-coded in the rules there's a certain degree of not-unreasonable expectation that one will take these things into account as one roleplays one's character.

Thus, if said eldritch knight's stats tell us he's strong of arm, tough as nails, but somewhat clumsy and repulsive to look at/be around (say, a stat line something like St 16, In 13, Wi 11, Dx 8, Co 17, Ch 6) that should, one would think, be likely to result in a somewhat different character in play than the same eldritch knight with the same stats only flipped around a bit (let's say St 13, In 17, Wi 6, Dx 11, Co 8, Ch 16) who is brilliant, suave and debonair, but a little fragile and who has a real propensity for attracting or finding trouble.

Chances are extremely high that neither of those stat lines accurately reflects you-the-player sitting at the table, which means at least some movement away from simply playing yourself becomes necessary. That said, some players are better at this movement-away-from-self than others.

 

[clearstream]

Which, in a stat-less game, would be great!

However, D&D (along with many other systems) has stats that lay out in more or less general terms a character's physical and mental (and in a few cases, spiritual) capabilities in relation to other inhabitants of the setting, and even if it's not hard-coded in the rules there's a certain degree of not-unreasonable expectation that one will take these things into account as one roleplays one's character.

Thus, if said eldritch knight's stats tell us he's strong of arm, tough as nails, but somewhat clumsy and repulsive to look at/be around (say, a stat line something like St 16, In 13, Wi 11, Dx 8, Co 17, Ch 6) that should, one would think, be likely to result in a somewhat different character in play than the same eldritch knight with the same stats only flipped around a bit (let's say St 13, In 17, Wi 6, Dx 11, Co 8, Ch 16) who is brilliant, suave and debonair, but a little fragile and who has a real propensity for attracting or finding trouble.

Chances are extremely high that neither of those stat lines accurately reflects you-the-player sitting at the table, which means at least some movement away from simply playing yourself becomes necessary. That said, some players are better at this movement-away-from-self than others.

Why do you suppose that one cannot play oneself, but as one would be if strong of arm, tough as nails, but somewhat clumsy to look at/be around? I'm not saying that other modes of immersion are bad, and I'm also not clear where the resistance to just playing yourself - mutatis mutandis - arises from? Immersion in a different world, rather than immersion in being a different person.

 

[Lanefan]

Why do you suppose that one cannot play oneself, but as one would be if strong of arm, tough as nails, but somewhat clumsy to look at/be around? I'm not saying that other modes of immersion are bad, and I'm also not clear where the resistance to just playing yourself - mutatis mutandis - arises from? Immersion in a different world, rather than immersion in being a different person.

There's nothing at all wrong with playing yourself provided you can somehow figure out what your own stats would be in whatever system you're playing and use those.

Me, I'm not particularly strong of arm, nor tough as nails, but I'm usually not all that clumsy nor am I any more repulsive than the next guy (or so I'm told...other opinions may vary ). Therefore, if I end up with stats that indicate those features then by default I cannot (in good faith) play myself because those stats do not reflect me.

 

[clearstream]

There's nothing at all wrong with playing yourself provided you can somehow figure out what your own stats would be in whatever system you're playing and use those.

You might have misunderstood my example.

Me, I'm not particularly strong of arm, nor tough as nails, but I'm usually not all that clumsy nor am I any more repulsive than the next guy (or so I'm told...other opinions may vary ). Therefore, if I end up with stats that indicate those features then by default I cannot (in good faith) play myself because those stats do not reflect me.

I can imagination a stronger, tougher, more repulsive version of myself. But are you saying that for you to do something similar, you have to imagine a person that is different from yourself in all respects?