Celebrim
Legend
Probably not, but if I might make a suggestion I feel it doesn't end well because you don't actually offer to me a competing view of what immersion is or how it is achieved. You don't give definitions. You don't explain why I'm wrong. Ect.
In this sense I mean it as, did the thing happen in the "book" or "movie" of the game or was it part of the process that created that "book" or movie?
Well, did where the fart and monte python jokes something said in the imagined universe? Did the character say them or the player? And I presume you mean that your fiancé and not the fiancé of your character. If they occurred in the real world but not in imaged game world, then they didn't end up on the transcript.
So hard to say, but I think the answer is, "Yes, I mean more than that." Now, keep in mind the stuff I'm excluding isn't necessarily bad, and often it is necessary, but it isn't part of the imagined world. So we're also going to exclude attempts to clarify the fictional positioning like, "Is the orc on this side of the table, or the other side?" or "About how wide is the door?" The character wouldn't need to ask that because the character can see the orc or the door. But the player can't, so he needs clarification in order to see the same imagined world the GM sees. This is necessary at times. We are also going to exclude mechanical processes of play like rolling the dice or specifying the game rules. Sometimes specifying the game rules can double as narration such as, "Marvelo starts casting charm person on the orc." should give us enough information to see what is happening with Marvelo if we know what spell-casting looks and sounds like - roughly "Marvelo waves his arms and fingers about, and chants in a loud clear voice some magic words." That "starts casting charm person on the orc" is both an action declaration and narration above Marvelo. Probably we can get away with this because spells in D&D are little predefined packets of narrative force. Spells in D&D are not very open ended at all, and they tend to be actually quite rigid, describing exactly what they do and no more or no less.
OotS has an ongoing joke about this in that in world the magic words that are chanted for spells are literally the names of the spells.
If a player needs to read the rules to a spell out loud though, that isn't immersive. It's sometimes necessary if I forget the language of the spell, but it's not immersive. Only things that actually happen in the imagined space are immersive. The more things that happen outside of the imagined space, the more you risk breaking immersion. The players might still be involved in the game and enjoying it, but they won't be immersed in it. If immersion is just a synonym for "involved in the game" then it's pretty darn useless and we should discard it.
But in what sense are the immersive? They are certainly not immersive in the sense I defined the term. You just flatly declare that they are and contradict me without giving any sort of explanation. Ok, you disagree, but no reason is given nor any rules by which we could determine what is or isn't immersive.
Because "I use diplomacy" doesn't help me type out the transcript of the game in the way "I use charm person on the guard does". Bilbo says to the guard, "Hey, Dori, I can't sleep. Why don't I take the rest of your shift and get some shut eye, and I'll finish your watch?" does let me type out the transcript of the game. I get a script in the way "I use diplomacy" doesn't get me a script. "I use diplomacy" didn't happen in the game world. Bilbo saying, "Hey, Dori, I can't sleep...", did.
Oh good gosh no, no, no. The difference between the two is serious story versus parody. If you set up a problem in a book or Netflix TV show with a non-trivial solution and then you hand wave past that, that is super weak writing.
