Immersion, Threat or Menace?

[Professor Phobos]

Thank you. Now, could you explain more how you understand immersion. Why do you consider immersion a distraction and a barrier to screwing with your character? What are the more effective ways to encourage good roleplaying as you see them?

Immersion is a thing that players do. It basically assumes that the player attempts to act as much like the character as possible; this in and of itself is nothing bad. However, it approaches the problem from the wrong direction. A player should not be viewing the interests of their character as the same as the interests of the player. A character probably wants to save the village, get some money, survive the zombie apocalypse, whatever. A player wants to get an interesting story out of the game, which can (and often does) mean sacrificing the self-interest of the character. Since my games tend to involve a great deal of behind the scenes engineering, it is extremely helpful to keep this level of distance between the player and the character. Otherwise, none of my players would ever come up with ideas like "Say, could I get trapped in hell for a while?", or "Hey, you know my Tragic Flaw? Can that come up next session?"

One way to look at it is this: Immersion is acting as if you *are* the character, while what I find superior is acting as if you are the character's head writer, for, say, a TV show. A good writer, mind, with attention to consistant and logical (or, at least, entertaining) character development. It makes it easier for when it is time to kill the character off, or retire them, or replace them with a newer, hipper version more in tune with today's modern audiences...(My metaphor might be getting stretched a bit...)

It also helps with a game that varies in tone; I run Buffy, so some episodes (i. scenarios, adventures, whatever), are humorous, some are completely serious, some are action-packed, others somber, etc. As you'll see with many TV shows, different aspects of a given character are emphasized at different times. Immersion kind of implies a character played completely straight, all the time. Your Noble-to-a-fault Paladin can be played for laughs and sometimes should, for instance...

EDIT: GMs, for instance, can't be bothered to immerse themselves in the multitude of characters they need to play, so each NPC is best viewed as a tool to achieve ends. "This is a horrible villain who makes everyone hate him", "This is a kindly old sensei whose death will really be tragic", and so on. I find it useful, as a player and as a GM with players who do this, to view PC's the same way.

 

[ashockney]

In my personal experience, it has quite a bit to do with group dynamics, self confidence, and character development. Overall, confidence isn't a big problem for me, but I've seen this as a barrier to other players I've played with. Give me a good background (RP) to sink my teeth into (such as at a con), and I'm pretty much good to go. The only final component is the group dynamic. Nobody wants to be the FIRST, or more importantly, the ONLY player to do this. So, the DM plays a key role here. Again, at cons, where multiple characters have a healthy RP background to dig into, and perhaps even ways to interact with each other, I've seen DM's step back, and just let the party interact for ten minutes or more. And everyone has great fun doing it!

As a DM, one of my primary concerns with immersion is time. I'm hindered from a couple of key directions. First, I only have three hours of game time per session (instead of the usual four to six hours), and further, my players expect a fairly brisk pace, levelling every 2 - 3 gatherings. I play loose and fast with experience, but I always am finding ways to maximize the encounters that we do play out together. Thus, the roleplaying aspects of immersion require time and energy, that can be in conflict with the greater whole. Also, as a DM, in order to create interesting characters, I would encourage the players to take some of the character creation on themselves, and how they interact with those around them, but this rarely happens. I don't typically take the time to write all this out for my players (in hopes of driving immersion) in order to focus instead on fun, exciting challenges and a good overall story for the players to unfold.

 

[Umbran]

BSF, the question is why don't you (you being anybody who doesn't practice immersive play) don't practice immersive play. It is not about the respective merits of immersive and non-immersive play. I'd like to keep this on-topic.

Can't really do one without the other, mythusmage. In detailing why they don't immerse, folks will inevitably be listing mertis of non-immersive and flaws in immersive play.

I also have to pipe in that the thing isn't digital, with only two states - immersed and non-immersed. Instead, there's a spectrum of depth of immersion. And what one person thinks is highly immersed may seem a wade in the kiddie pool to someone else. The question isn't "why don't you like immsersive play?" so much as "Why don't you like immersing as much as I do?"

All that being said, it is a fair question. I usually play a reasonably immersed game. But between discussing play-style with others, and the cases where I don't play immersed, I've noticed some trends. Among them:

1)Immservie play tends to get in the way of tactical play, with a large number of people enjoy. Distancing allows for more time spent on tactical anaylsis, and immersion usually implies taking tactically sub-optimal actions.

2)Some folks are creeped out by deep role-play. Deep-immersive roleplay is frequently akin to "method acting", and can involve emotional interplay they'd rather not experience. Getting into the ego of another person isn't pleasant for everyone.

3)Immersion can be just plain difficult for some. In a typical gaming environment, there's seventeen different things that can break suspension of disbelief, and unless you're going to go through a lot of effort to eliminate them and change the gaming-envronment's atmosphere, immersion may not be easy.

4)Immersion gets in the way or real-wrold social interaction. For many players with busy lives, the gaming session is also a major social occasion, and interaction while immersed is not the same as interaction while not immersed. The latter is generally more like hanging out with your friends.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I don't play, um, "Immersed" because that's not what I'm looking for from gaming.

Which isn't to say that I don't role-play or my group doesn't role-play. But it comes and goes. It's snippets. A colorful comment, a characteristic observation ... maybe a catch-phrase.

I'm not an actor for a reason. It's not my "thing". I get just as into place and goings-on as I get into "character". Same with tactical considerations and the fun of playing a game with numbers. I'm also just as in to "hanging out with people I like", which involves pithy table remarks and the like. I like ALL the aspects of RPGs and I'm not interested in cutting out everything else to focus on just one.

--fje

 

[Tinner]

My games run the gamut from near total immersion (larp/ic at all times) to almost no immersion (kick in the door, smash-mouth D&D). When we don't use immersive play, it's usually due to one or more of the following reasons.

1. It isn't fun - This isn't a critique of immersion itself. I'm not saying that immersive RP isn't fun in and of itself, because it is! What I mean is that there are times when getting inside my PC's head does not sound like a fun time. Sometimes I just want to kill the orc and take his pie. I play these games for fun. If any method of gaming doesn't feel fun at the time, I'm not going to use it. Likewise, there are times when roll-playing isn't what I want, and some deep immersion would be just the ticket.

2. The rules get in the way - Any game that demands tactical miniature use, extensive number crunching, a multi-page character sheet, and a handful of dice is much harder to play immersively than one that is based on clever wordplay and brief sessions of rock/paper/scissors. The most immersive game I ever took part in was a mortal X-files larp using the MET system. We all stayed deeply immersed throughout play. It was easy to do, since character sheets were the size of 3x5 cards and the rules were some simplistic. However, when we play D&D we only rarely reach any level of immersion, since everyone is more concerned with miniature placement, tactical movement, and getting the best situational modifiers to their actions. Sure, you can play D&D without these things, but we choose not to, and they do impede immersion.

3. Emotional content - This one works both ways. Some of the best, most immersive roleplay I've ever been a part of was in a two player on GM game of Shadowrun. The game was as much focussed on the personal lives of the PC's as it was their actual shadowruns. We spent hours detail family life, outings with children, marriages, etc. Because the playerss had so much emotional involvement in theinr characters, it was easy to stay immersed throughout the game. On the other hand, there have been games where the emotions were just as deep, but they were hot, negative emotions - Rage and anger at an enemy etc. When the players are heated up and out for blood, they are much more prone to seeing every dice roll as an attack on their hated foe. At that point they are so "immersed" in the actual combat, they concentrate on the mechanics rather than roleplaying. It's oddly similar to the experience of "being in the zone" that fighters feel. Where you become so focussed on the aggressive act at hand, it drives all other thoughts from your mind.

4. It's not that kind of game - Some games just aren't meant to be immersive. Toon, Paranoia, anything silly or played for camp Not to say that you couldn't, but why would you?

 

[The Shaman]

Is all roleplaying immersive? Or is "immersive roleplaying" a subset of roleplaying generally?

As I read it, mythusmage is oversimplifying the question by postulating that there are only two choices: immersive or not. I think of it as more of a continuum, with immersive being closest to 'uncloseted thespian'.

 

[Psion]

Well, when my wife plays, she says she just can't picture talking to the innkeep (or whatever). She can, however, relate to moving the mini across the battlemat. She played board games as she grew up and that's what she knows how to relate to. "Immersion" is simply not something that "clicks" with her.

 

[Psion]

I doubt many people put too much emphasis on stuff like "getting a room at a tavern" and "doing your taxes."

But, "dueling your mortal enemy" or "begging for your lost love's life" or "negotiating a cease-fire" requires a lil' bit of immersion to be truly enjoyable.

Indeed. As Umbran points out, it's not a dichotomy. Some immersion is worth it, some isn't.

I don't get into play experiences that really don't move the story forward. I only have 4 (or less) hours a week. I prefer to push past the chatty innkeep and get straight to the "duels with a nemesis" thing.

 

[Henry]

I don't "deeply immerse" often when playing, but I do from time to time; I do it as I feel the urge to, and that's really the only reason, the same as why I'll be very terse in describing some combats, and very flowery when describing others...

Perhaps part of it is that I feel a little goes a long way, and having someone always "in-character" gets a little old to me, like when you hear a radio station play the same song 6 times in one day.

 

[Pielorinho]

I have several different playstyles; one continuum might be between light roleplaying and heavy roleplaying.

For light roleplaying, I don't have much character notes ahead of time; I might have only a paragraph of background information, or even less. I've got a couple mannerisms, and I'm ready to go. If I'm DMing, I don't know the major NPCs' backstories, their motivations, their family lives, their fears, and so forth: I just know what their voice sounds like.

For heavy roleplaying, I have several pages of notes on PC background: their history, their familial ties, their hopes and dreams and fears, the history of important pieces of equipment, perhaps a letter they've written home, a description of their culture, and so on. NPCs have similar details: I know for whom they're working and for whom they'd like to be working, anything weird going on at home, the religion they follow and why, and so forth.

I bring this up because of something unexpected: I find that when I do light roleplaying, I am a BETTER roleplayer. When I am DMing and I'm thinking about all the motives for the NPCs, I'm devoting a lot of thought to keeping their actions true-to-form and internally consistent, and often end up with a fairly mechanical NPC. If I'm making up the NPC as I go along, I'm giving them weird verbal tics, coughs, facial expressions, palsied hands, and postures. My PCs that are played off the top of my head are free to be silly, and that means I'm willing to take more risks with how I play them, instead of trying to extemporize based on a set of hard-and-fast character traits that I established beforehand.

At first blush, you might characterize my light roleplaying style as nonimmersive, and my heavy roleplay style as immersive. These days I'm leaning more toward the apparently nonimmersive playstyle because I find it more immersive.

Daniel