I'm a huge fan of immersive RPing. How about you?

[AtomicPope]

Hmm. I didn't really read it that way, but I can see how one could.

Thing is, though, it's not just something I've seen in this thread. In almost every thread about "deep RP" I've seen, many of the people who object to it seem to equate it with "soap opera" and "romance" and "negotiating for six hours over the cost of a saddle." Makes me wonder if that's really the only experience they've had with an "RP-focused" game.

Jeez I hope not. But that's entirely possible. I've played in many Hack 'n Slash campaigns but few soap operas. I guess to someone who is use to dungeon crawling they're a bit out of their element when it comes time to get to the surface. To them anything socially or politically complex is a journey through unknown and uncomfortable territory. It could be enough to make them react negatively.


That and LARPer's

 

[ST]

So did we get a definition of what "immersive" means this time around? It gets used so many ways after all.

It usually gets used as meaning "method acting" but I've definately felt immersed in games where I wasn't just doing first-person dialog. I kind of go more with the improv school, where you're fully aware the activity is a game but you're still playing as hard as you can. In a lot of cases, I've not experienced that dice-mediated activites and immersion were mutually exclusive.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I kind of go more with the improv school, where you're fully aware the activity is a game but you're still playing as hard as you can. In a lot of cases, I've not experienced that dice-mediated activites and immersion were mutually exclusive.

This. You can play immersively, and speak in-character, without getting into "amateur thespianism" at all.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't vote, seeing as I believe you can do all that simultaneously.

I'm a huge supporter of 'schizophrenic role-playing'; at any given moment I might be deeply immersed in my fictional persona, or throwing the dice like Vegas high-roller, praying for a natural 20, or pondering the tactical situation like some kind of Rommel whose tanks were replaced by elves, or solving a problem using my character's skills, or solving a riddle using my own, or some amalgam thereof.

The interesting thing about RPG play is it's fluid nature. How players shifts stances over the course of a single session. Talking in character in an accent one minute, reciting some Python bit the next, so the speak.

I *think* I know something about playing good characters when I game. I mean, they entertain my fellow players, and that's the most meaningful criteria I can think of to judge them by.

I need read no further than post #8, as Mallus puts my own thoughts in words better than I could. The last sentence, in particular, might be the most important thing you read on this board tonight!

Lane-"what is this game for, if not to entertain?"-fan

 

[Gothmog]

I want the game to have both, but I'm more about the RP than I am the die-rolling. I'd rather a night of all RP and no dice than one of all dice and no RP, but given the option, I want both in a given session. I want conversations in-character, I want recurring NPCs, and I want character goals and backgrounds to come into play.

Even the die-rolling should have some meaning. I have no interest in more than the occasional random encounter or extra-prolonged dungeon crawl, unless it has some bearing on the plot and the goals/activities of the PCs. That's not to say I don't want frequent combat, I just want it to have meaning in the larger picture.

This. I agree with the vampire rodent 100%.

Ari, I really hope you write a metric crapload of adventures and sourcebooks for 4e. I've enjoyed your work before, and you really seem to be enthusiastic about 4e, which always shows up in your writing and ideas.

Anyway, I've always enjoyed immersion in the game AND dice rolling/combat, as long as the immersion isn't just for the sake of wooing the inkeep's comely daughter to bed (two guys acting that out in detail is creepy), or the combats aren't just a series of encounters to kill things and loot them. I'll admit I can handle the "soap opera" bits more than mindless combats/dungeon delves/looting, because occasionally an interesting idea or plot hook comes up during the RP heavy moments, but on the whole both are boring and pointless in their own ways.

Give me a reason to care about the theological implications of a religious schism and its implications for the campaign world, and I'm loving it and not caring if I don't roll a die for 6 hours of gametime. Speaking in character and using knowledge and terminology my character would use is a lot of fun. Alternately, give me adrenaline-soaked battles where something of import hinges on the outcome (either for personal reasons for my character, or for the campaign setting), and I'll happily engage in a bloodbath.

 

[kiznit]

Man, I used to believe that there was nothing more fun than immersive roleplaying.

But somehow I got old and grumpy, and realized that pretty much most of the PCs I've played and seen played are basically monster-killing loot-crazy psychopaths.

So now I just like to kill stuff and I don't sweat the emotional stuff too much. When in Rome, right?


If I want immersive, I'll play Dread or CoC or D20 Modern or something where for some reason it just comes easier.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Immersion is quite different from simply telling a story. If you're immersed, you don't decide what happens next, or what would thrill the audience; you decide what you're going to do. And life isn't predictable; hence the dice.

But the moment I am pulling dice, I am remembered that it is a game. I am not sure I can see this as "full immersion". I like to think of "what would my character do", though, and maybe that's enough for immersion.

Because the dice-rolling/telling-stories dichotomy is a false one?

Quite possible.

 

[Ginnel]

Curse this thread wants me to start running my burned out planescape campaign, I want the party back in Sigil, I want them to get insulted everytime someone calls them a berk or clueless, I want them to get confused as they see someone walking through a wall fading from sight, I want them to challenge an evil cult, I want them to manipulate and be manipulated, I want them to climb mount celestia and challenge proxies to mortal combat to make them do the "right" thing.

I want their backgrounds to come into play, Zachariah to search the planes for his father and the flying ship, Pi-wi to lead an army to defeat an evil empire, ofr Gustov to find out why the hell he has a ring which changes him from a troll to a halfling, I want Giacomo with his dragon familiar the marquis to create their own kingdom, and I want Gill/Gillian the succubus to manipulate people across the planes and come into conflict with his/her master.

This to me is immersion the characters following those challenges feeling as if their characters and their decisions matter, and seeing them grow, but I also want to see them grow powerful and bring their powers to bear (Raaa!) as they see fit earning just and unjust rewards. I also want to see my players around the table rolling dice and smiling and second guessing the campaign.

 

[Wombat]

Simply killing creatures is boring for me. If I wanted that, I'd do nothing buy play first-person shooters.

I want a game where I have a character that fits within a wider story and a deeper community. I'm not just talking about "I am a Horse Barbarian as opposed to a Barbarian". I mean having a world that makes sense (with certain "givens"), cultures that fit within that world, and a character that fits within the cultures.

Yes, I love immersive roleplaying ... and that is often something outside of the rules.

 

[Snoweel]

It amazes me that we're still left with "Immersive RP" vs Hack-and-slash" as the only two options in many peoples' minds.

This after the work of Robin Laws, which has been reproduced in the 4e DMG. Not to mention those 'What kind of gamer are you?' web-polls that were all the rage back about 5 years ago.

And still we have a fan of immersive RP (the OP) giving DUH KILL STUFFZ! as the only alternative.

Looking at the player types in the DMG we have:

Actor
Explorer
Instigator
Power Gamer
Slayer
Storyteller
Thinker
Watcher

I'm close to 100% Storyteller - I want THINGS TO HAPPEN - I want sagas created. I want PC choices to lead to consequences and quests to lead to other quests and the game world to grow and change for better or worse.

And that includes characters getting into a fair amount of fights and players making decisions in-character (not necessarily talking in-character).

But if there are two types of players from the above list that I have never enjoyed gaming with it is Actors (immersive RPers) and Power Gamers (hack and slashers).

Both of these put an irritating focus on one narrow element of the game, leading to it either becoming bogged down in irrelevent details (in the case of Actors) or metagame thinking and character development (in the case of Power Gamers).

Heroes can win fights with less-than-optimal choices and character builds, and they can engage in political intrigue without RPing 6 hours of banal smalltalk with the various members King's court.