Immersion?

[pemerton]

There's a key phenomenological difference between the state of being receptive and curious, soaking in novelty (what I, and I think most other RPGers, are pointing at when we say immersion) and the state of being goal-oriented and getting things done (flow), though both are characterized by deep mental involvement.

Both are pleasant, so time passes more quickly than unpleasant states where we're watching the clock, but looking back on the experience afterwards, flow has an "empty calories" quality.

<snip>

I think this distinction is very relevant to RPGing, but typical sessions messily include both. Thinking of "pure" activities makes it more clear: like spending say, three hours at teamLab Planets TOKYO (immersive art installation) vs. three hours spent coding (the closest activity to a pure flow state I can think of).

I have never spent 3 hours coding, so I can't comment on that.

I also don't think my RPGing has an "empty calories" quality, so I can't really comment on that either.

On Thursday afternoon I spent about two hours with a colleague working on a paper that we are authoring together. We wrote about two pages; but did a lot of other things too, like confirming some patterns across a series of statutes; and also identifying, mis-characterising, and then correcting our characterisation of, an unusual feature of another statute sometimes treated as belonging to the same series; and developing and outlining some further expository and analytical "moves" that we will make in the paper. That time passed much more painlessly than sitting in a typical two hour committee meeting.

When I say that the play of an RPG can be deeply involving, focusing activity and attention in a manner that creates a degree of oblivion (or at least modest failure to pay attention to) other stuff going on around me, I have something broadly similar in mind. I wouldn't describe it as "soaking in novelty" because I am not solely or probably even primarily an audience member. It's a collective, creative activity: there's the expression of one's own ideas, the riffing on the ideas of others, guided by systems and (on some occasions) by prep.

I have taken part in RPGing which isn't immersive in this sense; where is it more like a social gathering, with the game as a secondary concern or a socially facilitative activity. I've also taken part in RPGing which aspires to be like this, but where certain techniques being used disrupt the creative interaction. Sometimes Rolemaster could be like this, for instance, because of the way certain of its mechanics work.

Immersion in the fiction of the game is different from immersion in the activity of playing a RPG, but I think that, for me at least, the latter is a necessary condition of the former. (And immersion in character is, I think, a special case of immersion in the fiction.)

I don't think one has to approach other RPGs (well at least not D&D or Worlds without Number, with which I'm most familiar) thinking/worrying about "what adventure the GM has in mind" or "how should I ration my character's abilities" that you seem to call out as things that potentially prevent a "most immersive" experience. I mean, sure, a non-zero number of players do think about those things but they don't need to do so to actually play the game. First, they can just follow the fiction and, especially if the fiction includes conceits like patrons or adventuring organizations, their characters are told/pick the adventure to pursue. And the characters, being capable adventurers, should have some sense of their abilities and the limitations thereof. Sure, we track those things as players but that doesn't mean the characters are not aware of their own abilities. Or maybe are you saying that any game that has limited abilities requiring player tracking is inherently "less immersive" than, say, Burning Wheel which presumably has no such mechanics (I have no idea about Burning Wheel or, really, a lot of the games you reference, so be gentle, please)? And, of course, I get that the last paragraph is really just about your preference, just thought it might be interesting to explore further.

My first reaction is, "Oh, yeah, rationed abilities are super immersion-breaking."

But...I am often critical of other claims that things break immersion, because the pattern seems to be that whatever a given player doesn't like gets labeled by that player as immersion breaking.

I don't dislike rationed abilities. But - speaking for myself, and my experience as a player of RPGs - I find that they can be at odds with immersion in the fiction, at least in the context of a broader set of meta-concerns like "when will the GM let us rest" or "what else would the GM have put into this adventure". Again, I don't dislike that sort of RPGing; I just think it doesn't fully conduce to immersion in the fiction.

The RPG I mentioned in my post as the one I find the best for immersing in the fiction as a player - Burning Wheel - does have limited-use abilities, namely, Fate and Persona points. But because the basic function of these is to let you try harder (by adding to your dice pool), deciding whether or not to use them doesn't - at least for me - disrupt my immersion in the fiction of my character. Quite the opposite - it leads me back into my character, and understanding what my character is driven by, and how hard they are willing to try. A further aspect to this is that, if a character suffers a prima facie mortal wound, they survive only if they have The Will to Live, which requires spending a point of Persona. So choosing to spend your last persona point on something else is making a very strong expression, as one's character, that one is willing to die for <whatever is being aimed at>.

Addressing some of Swarmkeeper's questions: I personally find some typical ways of using patrons and adventuring organisations quite lampshade-y: that is, it's pretty obvious to everyone at the table that the real reason for the players agreeing to have their PCs take up <this particular challenge> is that it is the one the GM has in mind, has prepped, etc; and the patron (or similar) is really just hanging a lampshade over that. What makes Burning Wheel immersive, for me, is that it doesn't use a GM-preps-adventure approach to framing scenes and presenting obstacles. Everything starts with the characters. So there's never anything "meta" about why my PC is doing, and cares about, <this thing>.

Prince Valiant, which I also mentioned, does use prepped scenarios. But the PCs are knights errant (or part of their entourage), and the scenarios speak pretty directly to the concerns of errantry. And there are system features (its simplicity, but also the way it allows conflicts to be resolved and framed) that make it very easy, as a scenario is unfolding, to bring to the fore the concerns the players have established for their PCs (which, by the nature of the game, will have some relation to Arthurian or similar tropes and themes). And to make this a little more concrete in practical terms, a Prince Valiant scenario of 2 pages will generally support an hour or two of play (depending on the details of those pages!) - so when I'm talking about simple mechanics and the idea of building on the tropes and themes and presented conflicts to further draw in the players, and support everyone's engagement with the shared fiction, it's not like doing that in (say) a D&D dungeon module.

 

[Hriston]

For me, immersion, as it relates to RPGing, is being what I would call "in character" in a method-acty sort of way. This doesn't mean outwardly acting in character or even speaking in first person as my character would, which I may or may not choose to do at any particular time, mostly unrelated to whether I'm feeling "immersed" or not. The feeling is one of identification with my character and of "knowing" what decisions to make on behalf of my character without going through any rational mental process (as a player) but rather because it feels right for my character to do such and such a thing. So it's a feeling of inhabiting my character's mind, as I imagine it, and that I am my character. I suppose this could be related to the psychological concept of self-states, and that the character could be seen as something like a self-state that is brought forward momentarily in play, during which time my usual personality is subsumed more or less into that of the character.

ETA: I think, just as an actor is better able to stay in the mental state of the character being played if their lines and blocking are as rote and so come as fluidly as possible so as to necessitate thinking as the actor as little as possible, so is it helpful with (my) immersion if use of the PC's mechanics is aligned with the motivations of the character so as not to conflict with remaining immersed while playing the game.

 

[AlexofBarbaria]

Unlike a lot of other "theorycraft" gamer jargon, I don't feel like "immersion" means whatever the person saying it wants it to mean in the the context of the current argument. I feel like I understand what other people mean when they say it. I can agree or disagree with how other gamers seek immersion, or what sustains or shatters it for them... but I feel like we're talking about the same things.

I do feel like, in the last twenty years, there's been a sea change in how people talk about "immersion"... not in what the word means, but in the sense that the argument that immersion isn't important is a recent development that I just can't come to terms with.

I agree that it's become more common for RPGers to say they don't value immersion (18.9% of the poll respondents here, along with presumably most of those who "don't get" it).

But I think it's partly because recently the word has been used for mental states beyond the original meaning, making immersion seem more nebulous and contentious than it is.

To show the +1 axe I'm grinding, I'd like to rehabilitate the more restricted, common sense notion of immersion (basically I think what @pemerton calls "immersion in the fiction" -- in our RPGing sense, this is just immersion!)

How about this formulation:

Immersion is:

a) Feeling like you're somewhere or someone else, which entails

b) Forgetting (to some pleasant extent) who or where you actually are.

There are many activities that invoke (b) but not (a). Pretty much anything that involves intense concentration will lead temporarily to (b). E.g., challenging work, the flow state of competently juggling or playing a musical instrument, etc. It's only immersion if you have (a).

As for how to reliably achieve (a) and not just (b) when RPGing, that's where my (half-baked) theory comes in that it's through receptive cognition (savoring details, soaking in novelty), and it's disrupted by (too much) executive cognition (filtering irrelevant details and resolving tasks with known patterns).

 

[GobHag]

I agree that it's become more common for RPGers to say they don't value immersion (18.9% of the poll respondents here, along with presumably most of those who "don't get" it).

But I think it's partly because recently the word has been used for mental states beyond the original meaning, making immersion seem more nebulous and contentious than it is.

To show the +1 axe I'm grinding, I'd like to rehabilitate the more restricted, common sense notion of immersion (basically I think what @pemerton calls "immersion in the fiction" -- in our RPGing sense, this is just immersion!)

How about this formulation:

Immersion is:

a) Feeling like you're somewhere or someone else, which entails

b) Forgetting (to some pleasant extent) who or where you actually are.

There are many activities that invoke (b) but not (a). Pretty much anything that involves intense concentration will lead temporarily to (b). E.g., challenging work, the flow state of competently juggling or playing a musical instrument, etc. It's only immersion if you have (a).

As for how to reliably achieve (a) and not just (b) when RPGing, that's where my (half-baked) theory comes in that it's through receptive cognition (savoring details, soaking in novelty), and it's disrupted by (too much) executive cognition (filtering irrelevant details and resolving tasks with known patterns).

As one of those 18.9%, I hate immersion in the fiction being the primary goal of someone/something unless it's someone's own personal goal. That kind of immersion is anathema to my preference of spectacle and variety, I put gamefeel over immersion any other day even--I'm fine with the expanded definition of immersions tho I call them 'flow state'

Fundamentally this is because I'm someone that much prefers being cool over believable, give me 'so fast that's it treated as teleport' or shouting people's broken arm back in place or wielding greatsword as a Halfling over trite things like 'needing to eat' or the 'square cube law'.

I am also a gamer, and I treat immersion as a buzzword for naughty word survival games.

 

[thefutilist]

I prefer when players make choices that make sense for their characters to make in the given situation within the setting, rather than chasing "story".

I don't understand, when would the two ever conflict? Even if you were making choices based on wanting a good story, wouldn't those choices have to make sense? otherwise you'd get a bad story.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I prefer when players make choices that make sense for their characters to make in the given situation within the setting, rather than chasing "story".

At face value I don't see anything wrong with this, except that I don't think any player (or GM) should be the judge of what "makes sense" to another player.

Let's even take an extreme case: the party is split, there is no communication between the two groups, and when combat breaks out for group A, somebody in group B suddenly decides to return to go find group A. Seems like a clear cut case of not making a decision that "makes sense" for that character.

Except....it could happen? Haven't you ever, in real life, suddenly thought something to the effect of, "Wow I've been in Sharper Image a long time...I'd better go check in on my wife at Sur la Table..."? Maybe to that player the choice does make sense, they really think that's what their character would do.

So we could ask them to explain it. "Hey, that seems...highly and improbably coincidental. Why would your character do that?"

If the person has a good explanation they will offer it. But if the person knows they are only doing it for gamist reasons, but there is a table "rule" about that, they will...drumroll...also offer a good explanation. So by having an expectation at the table that people play a certain way, we are actually encouraging people with different preferences to be deceptive.

I'm not accusing you (@Micah Sweet) of imposing that kind of pressure. I suspect what you and most well-adjusted people do is to try to play with people who help make an enjoyable game, which usually means playing the game in a way that jibes with our own playstyle, and filter out the people who consistently spoil the fun for us. Which I think is the right answer. My general rule is to not play with jerks, instead of trying to make jerks play the game my way.

For my part, I have decided (again, by following the lead of @iserith, and also Angry DM) to just stop worrying about why other players make decisions. Although I probably wouldn't suddenly run off to join the combat, if somebody else does so I just pay attention to the story. ("My ally arrived in the nick of time! Just like in the movies!"). Although I also try to not play with people who spoil my fun, there are too many other behaviors to filter for, and this just isn't something that bothers me. Or breaks my immersion.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

Immersion is something I pursue to train out the part of my aging to think a different way. Takes a creativity and vulnerability that we actively avoid when getting older. Just pursuing that childlike wisdom, and attempting Immersion helps get me there. First thing I do is start using character names and making majority table talk in-character. Of course I still have my cocktail and social sidebar

 

[Retros_x]

There are players who can immerse in their Theatre of the Mind space. I guess that this is a "session zero" or party contract topic whenever you start a new game with a new cast of players.

Immersion is not something that can be discussed in a session zero IMO. Its a very personal and introspective feeling at least in my experience. My most immersive experiences are when I am alone or when the others are silent and immersed themselves (like in a movie theatre). TTRPG is quite contraproductive, because it demands to communicate with each other. Even if we all agree to always stay in character and act our asses off it will still be rarely immersive to me, because its not Daniel Day-Lewis in a grand costume at an impressive movie set doing an oscar worthy monologue, but my buddy Alex at my living room table with pizza crumbs in his beard acting on high-school-level. Its still a lot of fun to me! I love it! But its not immersive, I don't get "lost in the world, lost in the fiction" - For this feeling I choose other media and hobbies.

TTRPG are for me about collaborative storytelling, rolling dice, making decisions and plain "gaming". Immersion sometimes happens, but it is secondary, because it is hard to impossible to achieve for a full session because it contradicts so many other aspects of the game.

 

[dbm]

I don't understand, when would the two ever conflict? Even if you were making choices based on wanting a good story, wouldn't those choices have to make sense? otherwise you'd get a bad story.

I’m not @Micah Sweet but I can give a solid example of the point.

Consider a character who is an alcoholic. This is probably a strong driver of behaviour and (assuming being in recovery) it might well make sense for the character to avoid situations where they are tempted to succumb to their addiction.

In a game like GURPS, while you get some benefit from taking Alcoholism as a disadvantage during character creation there is no upside during play - it’s all downside from there on. So, as a player, it makes sense for you to also avoid situations where your disadvantage could come up.

Contrast that with a game like Fate where being an alcoholic would probably be an Aspect. In that system there is little / no upfront benefit from taking this aspect; the benefit comes from having your aspect impact you during play. So as a player, there is incentive for you to engage with scenes where your addiction will negatively impact you.

Hence, with a system like GURPS the player is incentivised to act consistent to the behaviours of a person who might have such a disadvantage. While in Fate the player is incentivised to act counter to the behaviours of a person who might have such a disadvantage, notionally in the pursuit of a more interesting story.

 

[pemerton]

I’m not @Micah Sweet but I can give a solid example of the point.

Consider a character who is an alcoholic. This is probably a strong driver of behaviour and (assuming being in recovery) it might well make sense for the character to avoid situations where they are tempted to succumb to their addiction.

In a game like GURPS, while you get some benefit from taking Alcoholism as a disadvantage during character creation there is no upside during play - it’s all downside from there on. So, as a player, it makes sense for you to also avoid situations where your disadvantage could come up.

Contrast that with a game like Fate where being an alcoholic would probably be an Aspect. In that system there is little / no upfront benefit from taking this aspect; the benefit comes from having your aspect impact you during play. So as a player, there is incentive for you to engage with scenes where your addiction will negatively impact you.

Hence, with a system like GURPS the player is incentivised to act consistent to the behaviours of a person who might have such a disadvantage. While in Fate the player is incentivised to act counter to the behaviours of a person who might have such a disadvantage, notionally in the pursuit of a more interesting story.

But the GURPS behaviour is not immersive at all - there's no temptation or longing to drink.