Is Immersion Important to You as a Player?

[pemerton]

I may be misunderstanding the term as it is being used here, but when I think of GM world style immersion, I generally think of groups who have very little interest in the GMs narration but rather are focused on exploring the setting and feeling like they are there as characters. There are definitely people who play in a way where the GM's narration is important and colorful, and supposed to pull you in, but where I've encountered immersion focused on world, players are pretty skeptical of GM narration as a tool and tend to want the GM to be as brief with descriptions as possible. The idea being the GM simply narratives outcomes, things around them etc, but always avoids something like narrative past decision points the players might make. I.E. "I walk into the room", "In the room you see x, y and z; what do you want to do?" I would say in these kinds of games, players are generally not looking for something that feels like Lord of the Rings as a book, but allows them explore Middle Earth as characters.

This description of play makes sense in itself - it makes me think of a certain sort of classic D&D play, and also of the sort of approach to play that a hardened Diplomacy player might adopt.

But it doesn't strike me as immersive at all.

 

[pemerton]

I totally agree that I don't need to know this level of things to make a character driven choice. The name of the town doesn't influence that scenario, sure. If I'm doing a test of character about emotion, then niche details about religion are unlikely to come up. I understand how you've set up a scenario that is almost exclusively about the character's conception of self, and not related to doing something in the world, thus eschewing the need for questions like who is the ruling authority of the town closest to me.

But, whether my teacher is expected as a part of God's Watchdogs, or a separate secular entity that I'm lucky to have would be a salient point. If my decision to join the Watchdogs comes out of the lack of any civilization, so clinging to this one source of authority, or if it's reactionary and holding onto the past in light of the encroaching presence of industry and government.

These, and all the other questions I asked above, are why I can't see the setting as something on the level of "background color". Any answer I get to any of them informs how I approach the situation.

I want to be clear: I'm not trying argue that I couldn't conceive of a character with wants and flaws and problems, and then do my best to confront a situation that puts any of those to the test. Nor do I think that that could not be fully engaging and exciting on its own merits.

But, an understanding of the world gives me so much more confidence to make choices, as I know why I've come to them, and what they mean, and so I'll always be grateful when there's information that will allow me to experience the world through my character's eyes in a more complete way, even if that information isn't necessarily reflective or vital to my character's personal state.

<snip>

you gave base setting details in your opening paragraph, but I have no clue how much is preset in player facing material, or that the players would be expected to know. I understand if that would resolve a fair amount of questions I'm positing. However, that wouldn't change any of my desire for it in the first place.

It's a while since I've read the rules for DitV, and I've never played it, but a good chunk of what you're asking about is there in the player-facing material that establishes the basics of the game.

That said, I do think the game is premised on an approach closer to what I've described upthread - the player filling in details where they feel they need them to help make sense of their PC - and less on an approach in which the player seeks and received input from outside. Because the latter tends to disrupt the player's focus on the "internal" and dramatic, and rather shifts the focus of play onto processing someone else's storytelling and building up a picture of that.

There is a crucial role for GM narration in DitV, namely, in revealing new towns - which are the focus of a session's activity - to the players. But the point of that narration isn't to provide the players with new information about the setting that will help them further contextualise their PCs. It's to provide problems that the PCs have to deal with, and which - in the course of being dealt with - will require more engagement by the PCs with the "internal" and dramatic that they, via their PCs, are bringing to the situation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This description of play makes sense in itself - it makes me think of a certain sort of classic D&D play, and also of the sort of approach to play that a hardened Diplomacy player might adopt.

But it doesn't strike me as immersive at all.

I think everyone finds different things immersive. I can say people who play this way often invoke immersion as a reason why they like it. But that stuff varies. Some people get highly immersed in documentaries, some people get highly immersed in action movies.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think everyone finds different things immersive. I can say people who play this way often invoke immersion as a reason why they like it. But that stuff varies. Some people get highly immersed in documentaries, some people get highly immersed in action movies.

I've gotten pretty immersed in the color bars that appear on the tv when a station stops broadcasting at 3 am.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've gotten pretty immersed in the color bars that appear on the tv when a station stops broadcasting at 3 am.

I think we’ve all been there at some point

 

[Umbran]

Even when its a good faith effort, it can be easy to fall into very polarized positions in these discussions, because someone states A and you tend to take up position B.

There is also often a succession of small strawmen that get created, but not rejected.

Add that to the issue that humans have a behavior that supporting a position puts a perceived emotional and social status stake in the ground that makes it difficult for us to accept disagreement.

And you find yourself having personally started with the idea that it is perfectly fine for some folks to have pineapple on pizza, if that's what they want, and end up arguing whether food without pineapple on it can even be called "pizza".

 

[Campbell]

Fundamentally we are talking about at least 3 distinct elements:

1. Does the setting feel like a real place that I (if transported there) could walk around in, explore and investigate?
2. Does the character feel like a real person who is genuinely connected into the setting. Someone who lives there, has meaningful social connections and like responsibilities, desires, goals, etc. If we were to stop playing them, does it feel like they would have their own personal animus. A good test here is if I were to switch character sheets with another player at the table would the characters still feel fundamentally like the same character.
3. Do situations the characters find themselves in feel organic to the setting and the characters? Does it feel like the characters are naturally pursuing their aims? How contrived does it feel? Is the antagonism fundamentally honest? Do the relationships between characters feel like real human relationships?

Well to a certain extent these things can support one another we often have to make tradeoffs on where to focus our efforts on a cognitive level. Most games will feature some degree of all three, but our focus and attention will tend to be more specialized. It's not really that a game must be all one thing. Rather a game will not be all things maximally at any given time and we must choose what we wish to prioritize, not including any tradeoffs were making to like play a damn game.

 

[Aldarc]

More and more, I have come to value in-game immersion more than in-character roleplay immersion. By the former I mean that I enjoy being immersed in gameplay. It doesn't matter what player stances I may be juggling with my character - actor, author, pawn, etc. - so long as I am immersed in the game, everyone else is on the same page, and we are enjoying playing the game together. Because sometimes I want to check out of roleplaying my character because it can be mentally taxing and I don't want to deal with that on that day or maybe I want to sit back and enjoy other players' performances and actions as an audience member rather than a fellow actor on the stage.

 

[Manbearcat]

First off, let me say thank you for responding with such a detailed example. I hope my lack of experience and familiarity with DitV doesn't hurt my response, and arguably, given the conversation, is hopefully apt.

Well, I'll start by assuming that being a part of God's Watchdogs is a given for playing the game, but even so, is this a choice I made? Did my family? Is this rare, or anticipated? Is this a position that is respected? Feared? Tolerated? Hated? How impressive is exorcising a demon? Am I matching the bare minimum and dealing with imposter syndrome, or do I have a full head already as a prodigy? Do I ever think I'm likely to encounter another one? Is scripture something everyone is expected to know, or is a simple basic understanding enough to set me apart? Does the vast majority agree and understand the tenets of The King of Life? Have I ever run into someone who would contradict these teachings, or am I confident due to never learning of anything else?

Is the player in charge of choosing drawing the conflict to the forefront, or is it inflicted upon them? Because if I'm the one staging it, at what level does a temper become so foul as to draw attention from an elder? Is it swearing in polite company or even rough individuals think twice about crossing my path? Is proficient horse riding a requirement for basic life that I have no choice but to deal with, or am I wrestling with fear because it's holding me back from achieving my own voluntary goals that I could give up should they prove too troublesome?

This is obviously a lot of mechanics talk, and I've not played poker, so it's a bit over my head. However, if I'm saying what I'm doing, that feels like it has to come out of an understanding of my character's position in the world, and what is expected or unusual, safe or risky.

Maybe here's the rub. I totally agree that I don't need to know this level of things to make a character driven choice. The name of the town doesn't influence that scenario, sure. If I'm doing a test of character about emotion, then niche details about religion are unlikely to come up. I understand how you've set up a scenario that is almost exclusively about the character's conception of self, and not related to doing something in the world, thus eschewing the need for questions like who is the ruling authority of the town closest to me.

But, whether my teacher is expected as a part of God's Watchdogs, or a separate secular entity that I'm lucky to have would be a salient point. If my decision to join the Watchdogs comes out of the lack of any civilization, so clinging to this one source of authority, or if it's reactionary and holding onto the past in light of the encroaching presence of industry and government.

These, and all the other questions I asked above, are why I can't see the setting as something on the level of "background color". Any answer I get to any of them informs how I approach the situation.

I want to be clear: I'm not trying argue that I couldn't conceive of a character with wants and flaws and problems, and then do my best to confront a situation that puts any of those to the test. Nor do I think that that could not be fully engaging and exciting on its own merits.

But, an understanding of the world gives me so much more confidence to make choices, as I know why I've come to them, and what they mean, and so I'll always be grateful when there's information that will allow me to experience the world through my character's eyes in a more complete way, even if that information isn't necessarily reflective or vital to my character's personal state.


I truly hope I haven't missed your aim with how I have responded.

Edit: And, a caveat, you gave base setting details in your opening paragraph, but I have no clue how much is preset in player facing material, or that the players would be expected to know. I understand if that would resolve a fair amount of questions I'm positing. However, that wouldn't change any of my desire for it in the first place.

Great post!

I think what we're (you and I and perhaps @Bedrockgames ) getting at is what I was outlining earlier in the thread; immersion isn't (and cannot be really) one thing with hard-coded parameters.

So another way to engage with what I wrote and what you replied to is this:

To some folks, "less is more" or "addition by subtraction, while to others "more is more" and "subtraction is just plain subtraction."

I'll give a few personal examples here:

* If you increase the parameters of a social system or you increase the parameters of my mental processing (particularly certain parameters), I will tend toward becoming distracted such that the experiencing of the social system or performing the mental processing (and all that comes downstream of activating my central nervous system) will be diminished in multiple ways. My "presence" will be diminished. My perception and understanding will be diminished. My appreciation will be diminished. My performance will be diminished.

Once I have some very particular, focused parameters, everything else becomes "noise." I'm rather confident that my threshold for this is considerably less than your own.

* Are you familiar with the opening scene of Super Eight and "the elevator scene" in Ghostbusters? These scenes are both incredibly short. 15-30 seconds. We are working from a huge information deficit in totality but an information-rich environment experientially due to how incredibly well-constructed these two short scenes are. It isn't just what is said and put before us...it is what is left unsaid...that invites us (demands us) to viscerally put the pieces together about the nature of what is before us (setting, situation, characters).

Simply put, by my reckoning of it, the more you add to those scenes ("tell rather than show"), the less impactful they become and the level of storycraft decreases (with the arrow pointing toward inelegant, clumsy ham-fistedness). Despite the unbelievably abbreviated nature of those scenes, "they are perfect" in terms of both information-richness, and intensity of connection.

---

I feel similarly about Cormac McCarthy's works. Minimalism (reduction of information in specific areas), when executed deftly, is always vastly preferable to me when I'm running a game, reading a novel, watching a move, physically grappling, climbing a wall, exercising/playing sport, or engaged in a social environment.

I'm assuming you might feel differently about any of the bullet points above, about Cormac McCarthy's works or about some or all of the endeavors I've listed directly above?

(Interestingly, I appreciate complex, layered musical pieces just as much as I do more simplified arrangements. And when it comes to proofs/refutations, I obviously prefer abundance over scarcity!)

EDIT - @pemerton answered your questions about DitV. Like the scenes in Super 8 and Ghostbusters above, DitV intentionally eschews focus on various things (any ephemera or color that isn't absolutely necessary to engage with the premise of the present situation) in order to demand that exact type (inherent to those two movie scenes depicted above) of focus by the participants on resolving the internal dynamics of character and situation.

 

[Xamnam]

I think what we're (you and I and perhaps @Bedrockgames ) is what I was outlining earlier in the thread; immersion isn't (and cannot be really) one thing with hard-coded parameters.

So another way to engage with what I wrote and what you replied to is this:

To some folks, "less is more" or "addition by subtraction, while to others "more is more" and "subtraction is just plain subtraction."

Stated that way, I absolutely understand and can agree. I think put too much emphasis on 'mostly' (or maybe 'might') in "setting might be mostly irrelevant" as opposed to considering the improved weight of details when they stand alone. Subtraction is absolutely valuable tool for creation. I also know that it can go too far for me.

I'll give a few personal examples here:

* If you increase the parameters of a social system or you increase the parameters of my mental processing (particularly certain parameters), I will tend toward becoming distracted such that the experiencing of the social system or performing the mental processing (and all that comes downstream of activating my central nervous system) will be diminished in multiple ways. My "presence" will be diminished. My perception and understanding will be diminished. My appreciation will be diminished. My performance will be diminished.

Once I have some very particular, focused parameters, everything else becomes "noise." I'm rather confident that my threshold for this is considerably less than your own.

I think that's a fair assumption. I tend that way with complex mechanical systems, things that ask me to be processing decisions constantly (this will come back up), but keeping contextual information at the ready is a much more background process, so it doesn't increase my cognitive load nearly as much. Reading, comprehending, storing, and recalling details has always been something I have seemingly had an easier time with than others. I've seen friends at the table with much more of your approach, so what you're saying here makes a lot of sense.

* Are you familiar with the opening scene of Super Eight and "the elevator scene" in Ghostbusters? These scenes are both incredibly short. 15-30 seconds. We are working from a huge information deficit in totality but an information-rich environment experientially due to how incredibly well-constructed these two short scenes are. It isn't just what is said and put before us...it is what is left unsaid...that invites us (demands us) to viscerally put the pieces together about the nature of what is before us (setting, situation, characters).

Simply put, by my reckoning of it, the more you add to those scenes ("tell rather than show"), the less impactful they become and the level of storycraft decreases (with the arrow pointing toward inelegant, clumsy ham-fistedness). Despite the unbelievably abbreviated nature of those scenes, "they are perfect" in terms of both information-richness, and intensity of connection.

I feel similarly about Cormac McCarthy's works. Minimalism (reduction of information in specific areas), when executed deftly, is always vastly preferable to me when I'm running a game, reading a novel, watching a move, physically grappling, climbing a wall, exercising/playing sport, or engaged in a social environment.

I'm assuming you might feel differently about any of the bullet points above, about Cormac McCarthy's works or about some or all of the endeavors I've listed directly above?

I've not seen Super Eight, but yes to Ghostbusters, and both read and watched No Country. Now, here, I'd say I'd actually place myself much closer to you! I love films that can imbue very small moments with great weight, and as you mention, showing rather than telling is a aphorism with a lot of truth to it. Artful direction that doesn't waste time on needless exposition or set-up and trusts the audience to be invested and active in the watching process is a treat.

However, I'd say that's true for me specifically in the context of movies (and as another example, video games), as opposed to ttrpgs, and if I had to answer why, I'd say there are two reasons for that. First, they are providing enough ambient sensory detail that I do feel weighted in the world. While I wouldn't characterize it as full aphantasia (as I've learned one of my players does have), visualizing things has always been a struggle for me. When I read, I rarely have a picture in my head of what any given character looks like unless it is plot relevant. So, for example, in a western, things like the remoteness of a town, how lively it is, how strangers are treated, are all baked in to a much greater degree. It's hard to not show that ancillarily in the process of detailing the important.

Second, and I think this carries more weight in regards to this discussion, when in the process of viewing and interpreting someone else's fiction, my job is to pay attention and interpret. I can devote my full mental energy towards understanding, and thinking about what necessarily must be true for the scene to exist, and what it implies about the situation, characters, and world. However, in the context of playing a game, and I'll state this intentionally hyperbolically, I am always worried about what choice I need to make next, and if it's the wrong one. This is a pattern throughout a lot of my life, and I'm not surprised to see it play out here. With this activity, my actions both determine the course of the game, and to some degree the engagement and fun of everyone else at the table (not even to mention my own). I'm juggling trying to be mechanically sound, narratively appropriate, tonally fitting, and do it with the speed the scene demands, while respecting the desires of the rest of the table, and worst of all, trying to come up with something interesting.

Now, I know, I don't need to make the "right" choice. The game will carry on, there are other players who are also responsible for steering it, what different players want will occasionally be in conflict through no fault, sometimes the "wrong" choice can end up being more interesting, sometimes/in some games there's not really any such thing as a wrong choice, and the point here is to have fun more than it is being successful. But as much as I know that, and it's something I'm trying to work on in several arenas, something that actively helps me when confronted with this stress is the ability to think "Well, at least I have the relevant information to make it." In games, what that readily available relevant information is, to me, is the setting details. One less unknown factor to complicate the decision making process. Even better if it's the sort of thing I can gather on my own time, away from the table. Hence, my favor for setting books.

EDIT - @pemerton answered your questions about DitV. Like the scenes in Super 8 and Ghostbusters above, DitV intentionally eschews focus on various things (any ephemera or color that isn't absolutely necessary to engage with the premise of the present situation) in order to demand that exact type (inherent to those two movie scenes depicted above) of focus by the participants on resolving the internal dynamics of character and situation.

That makes sense. I always want to engage with a game as it desires, so as to best showcase its strengths or unique qualities. DitV does sound like one I might struggle with a bit initially, but given its history and influence in the hobby, it's one that I want to give a fair and honest shot. I'm sincerely hoping that as I grow, both as roleplayer and more generally as a person, the concerns above are ones I'm able to move away from.

Thank you for the stimulating response!