Is Immersion Important to You as a Player?

[dytrrnikl]

When playing in a TTRPG, how important is immersion -- defined vaguely as "inhabiting your character inhabiting the world" -- to your enjoyment of the game?

Do you endeavor to experience the world of the game through your character and only your character? Do the rules matter for this, or is it more about the nature of play at the table? Are you okay seeing the sets and strings as it were? Do you act, speak and even think as your character for the duration?

If immersion is important to you, how do you react to other players or the GM when it isn't as important to them?

Short answer: No.
Longer answer: My experiences (been gaming since the 80s) with players who went too deep into becoming/experiencing their character have never been enjoyable, especially with how personal they would take their character’s set backs or frequently couldn’t separate tension between characters not being tension between players…guess it’s called
Bleed these days, disturbing title for a disturbing occurrence. To this day, as a GM, if I have a player that’s getting too deep into their character, I naughty word the session down and disinvite them. As a player, I just get up and apologize for cutting and running. But that’s me and by no means indicative of anyone else.

 

[dytrrnikl]

When playing in a TTRPG, how important is immersion -- defined vaguely as "inhabiting your character inhabiting the world" -- to your enjoyment of the game?

Do you endeavor to experience the world of the game through your character and only your character? Do the rules matter for this, or is it more about the nature of play at the table? Are you okay seeing the sets and strings as it were? Do you act, speak and even think as your character for the duration?

If immersion is important to you, how do you react to other players or the GM when it isn't as important to them?

Short answer: No.
Longer answer: My experiences (been gaming since the 80s) with players who went too deep into becoming/experiencing their character have never been enjoyable, especially with how personal they would take their character’s set backs or frequently couldn’t separate tension between characters not being tension between players…guess it’s called
Bleed these days, disturbing title for a disturbing occurrence. To this day, as a GM, if I have a player that’s getting too deep into their character, I naughty word the session down and disinvite them. As a player, I just get up and apologize for cutting and running. But that’s me and by no means indicative of anyone else.

 

[Ixal]

Well, the widespread disdain for immersion here certainly explains why WotC does not produce any setting books anymore. People just want numbers to minmax.

It certainly explains why the "role" in rpg now means tank or damage dealer and not disinherited dwarven noble.

 

[pemerton]

Well, the widespread disdain for immersion here certainly explains why WotC does not produce any setting books anymore.

What do setting books have to do with immersion?

 

[Ixal]

What do setting books have to do with immersion?

Why do you need a setting when you do not care about being immersed in it?

 

[Xamnam]

What do setting books have to do with immersion?

There's nothing that aids immersion more for me.

 

[Pedantic]

That's strange. I would generally accuse WotC of going light on books in general, but they've definitely done more setting material than player options books.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I do think a deep setting can help many players immerse but I don't think immersion was a huge consideration with the move away from one type of book to another (and I am not too plugged into WOTC these days so I can't weigh in on whether they moved away from setting books). But I do remember them moving from 'fluff' to 'crunch' in the 2000s and that having a negative impact on my enthusiasm as a gamemaster (I don't think of this stuff as 'fluff' but that was the term being used at the time). But I think that move was more about realizing they could make more marketing the books to players (whereas most of the books in prior editions, except for the PHB, were marketed towards GMs).

For me, I don't need deep deep setting books (there is a point where setting lore can get overly detailed) but I did like the broad overview many settings provided in the past, and then having books that were inspirational for a GM, and provided tools for a GM (so for example more stuff for making monsters, making traps and locations, less stuff for new PC options).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why do you need a setting when you do not care about being immersed in it?

There's a big difference between wanting setting coherence, having a character idea you want to stick to, and immersion. I can play from an authorial perspective and find both the first two important without deeply immersing myself in character, and regularly do.

The idea you have either deep immersion or token play and nothing in between is, frankly, silly.

 

[dytrrnikl]

Well, the widespread disdain for immersion here certainly explains why WotC does not produce any setting books anymore. People just want numbers to minmax.

It certainly explains why the "role" in rpg now means tank or damage dealer and not disinherited dwarven noble.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, when the lines get blurred between a fictional character and the person playing that character, such that they take something that happens to their character personally, creates unhealthy friction between them and other players and the GM. I don’t want that at the table as a GM or have to deal with it as a player. I always thought the players who went that deep into their characters were to be avoided for being borderline unstable. You can role-play a character without blurring the line between your character and you. But that’s me and by no means indicative of anyone else.