-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Immersion, Threat or Menace?
- Thread starter mythusmage
- Start date
mythusmage said:
I'm going to try to stay on topic and answer your question, but I do have to point out that, though I consider myself a "non-immerser" the first sentence doesn't really describe my style of play. I don't feel that non-immersion necessarily entails distancing oneself from the events their character goes through. Hopefully the stuff below will explain why.
I think the playstyle that best describes my approach to characterization is what Lewis Pulsipher once referred to as the "Vicarious Participator" style. In short, the style can be described as creating a character that's you the player (in personality) if you could become a mighty warrior or a powerful wizard or a cunning thief. No "immersion" is necessary, because it's your personality calling the shots. The character isn't so much a "game piece" as an extension of your persona into the game world.
This style of play appeals to me because RPGs (to me) are about exploring the "what if I were Conan" or "what if I were Gandalf" side of my imagination and creativity. Creating an alternate persona, one which replaces my own in controlling the character, would completely defeat the purpose of exploring those particular questions. So "immersion" is antithetical to the goals I bring to the table when gaming.
I suspect the limits mythusmage put on the discussion are a bit too constricting for the topic, but it is a good topic.
In my own games, we use varying levels of immersion, based on the situation. In early games, the PCs tend to address innkeepers directly and hold conversations. They are building contacts and such with the world. Later, they may streamline those conversations, and go immersive on the discussion with the gnome ambassador.
I'd also say that the level of immersion tends to go only as deep as "saying what you're character says" We don't roleplay romantic bits of the PC charming the skirt off a barmaid.
Conversely, I've done an encounter where a PC was interrogated, and we did that live action (gave the player a 1 page briefing for the encounter, rearranged the room and lighting, set the temp to 80deg.). The intent of that encounter WAS to immerse in the character. It was all talk, no action. It did climax in one of those "you can't handle the truth!" type finales, which was the goal. The player understood what was going on, and it was his chance to partake in a little melodrama.
I also liked what Ourph had to say. Playing yourself is a form of immersion, albeit subtle and effective.
Janx
In my own games, we use varying levels of immersion, based on the situation. In early games, the PCs tend to address innkeepers directly and hold conversations. They are building contacts and such with the world. Later, they may streamline those conversations, and go immersive on the discussion with the gnome ambassador.
I'd also say that the level of immersion tends to go only as deep as "saying what you're character says" We don't roleplay romantic bits of the PC charming the skirt off a barmaid.
Conversely, I've done an encounter where a PC was interrogated, and we did that live action (gave the player a 1 page briefing for the encounter, rearranged the room and lighting, set the temp to 80deg.). The intent of that encounter WAS to immerse in the character. It was all talk, no action. It did climax in one of those "you can't handle the truth!" type finales, which was the goal. The player understood what was going on, and it was his chance to partake in a little melodrama.
I also liked what Ourph had to say. Playing yourself is a form of immersion, albeit subtle and effective.
Janx
SweeneyTodd
First Post
Hi all,
We should probably respect mythusmage's wishes in this thread -- as the thread starter, he's within his rights to close the thread if he feels it strays too far.
I think that level of immersion and the stances used to portray a character is a fascinating topic, though; I'd love to discuss it, including the respective merits of different types of play. So I've created a different thread for that topic. I'd welcome any and all discussion along the lines broached here in that thread.
As for the topic of this thread, I fear I'd drift off topic if I went into too much detail about Stance preferences, so I'll restrict my answer to "I find it useful to place my character in interesting situations he might not have gotten to under his own power."
mythusmage said:
We should probably respect mythusmage's wishes in this thread -- as the thread starter, he's within his rights to close the thread if he feels it strays too far.
I think that level of immersion and the stances used to portray a character is a fascinating topic, though; I'd love to discuss it, including the respective merits of different types of play. So I've created a different thread for that topic. I'd welcome any and all discussion along the lines broached here in that thread.
As for the topic of this thread, I fear I'd drift off topic if I went into too much detail about Stance preferences, so I'll restrict my answer to "I find it useful to place my character in interesting situations he might not have gotten to under his own power."
Last edited:
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I think that it depends on the time and mood. Sometimes I get really into character when the mood of the table, the DM and the other players cooperate.
Other times, we just can't stop laughing about a joke that has nothing to do with the game.
I think the reason is because most of the time I play RPGs to escape from real life, to feel larger than life, to do things I couldn't actually do in real life. So, when the role playing consists of dealing with interpersonal relationships, love, anger, or any complicated emotion, I find it is no fun to try to role play it. I have enough problems with these things in real life, I don't need to deal with them in games as well. The same thing holds true for mundane things like buying things at the store, getting an inn room, etc.
In short, I want to be the fighter capable of killing 15 enemies at once without a scratch, who can lift a cart by himself, or the wizard who can kill his enemies with just a couple of gestures. That is the part of the role playing I focus on. Still, I want it to be fun and fair for everyone. So, because of that, during battles I concentrate on battle postitioning, the health of the group, how much damage the enemy has taken, etc. My character would be interested in that as much as I would, he just sees it in different terms than I do.
Other times, we just can't stop laughing about a joke that has nothing to do with the game.
I think the reason is because most of the time I play RPGs to escape from real life, to feel larger than life, to do things I couldn't actually do in real life. So, when the role playing consists of dealing with interpersonal relationships, love, anger, or any complicated emotion, I find it is no fun to try to role play it. I have enough problems with these things in real life, I don't need to deal with them in games as well. The same thing holds true for mundane things like buying things at the store, getting an inn room, etc.
In short, I want to be the fighter capable of killing 15 enemies at once without a scratch, who can lift a cart by himself, or the wizard who can kill his enemies with just a couple of gestures. That is the part of the role playing I focus on. Still, I want it to be fun and fair for everyone. So, because of that, during battles I concentrate on battle postitioning, the health of the group, how much damage the enemy has taken, etc. My character would be interested in that as much as I would, he just sees it in different terms than I do.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
I basically play at whatever "immersion level" the rest of the group I'm with seems to prefer.
Probably the best 'RPG-like' experience I ever had was what, for lack of a better word, I'd call 'partly-improv fan-theater.' We got together around the PS1 console RPG Xenogears, played the game (all for the second time at least) and extrapolated events of soap-operatic proportions from it. This lasted for only a couple of months, but we did it every night, so it was probably the equivalent of about two or three years in a pen-and-paper RPG campaign.
However, in that 'campaign,' such as it was, each 'player' portrayed multiple characters and also guided the plot. I'd say we were quite immersed in our characters, but I'm not sure how much it counts toward what Mythusmage was saying since we also had to be detached (to play a scene where, say, I had both Fei and Krelian and the two were at cross purposes, I couldn't "side" with either of them).
The second best RPG experience I've had was a hair away from wargaming, an absolute tactical challenge in the d20 system, pitting optimized characters and tactics against a ruthless GM and CRs 4 to 8 above the party's average level.
I'd say about half the players (usually the ones who didn't bother to min/max and were happy to play cannon fodder if they got to go out in a blaze of glory, or at least gory) had zero emotional investment in their characters. The rest of us were immersed to one extent or another and very invested in our characters, but still thought of them as 'playing pieces,' so to speak.
Probably the best 'RPG-like' experience I ever had was what, for lack of a better word, I'd call 'partly-improv fan-theater.' We got together around the PS1 console RPG Xenogears, played the game (all for the second time at least) and extrapolated events of soap-operatic proportions from it. This lasted for only a couple of months, but we did it every night, so it was probably the equivalent of about two or three years in a pen-and-paper RPG campaign.
However, in that 'campaign,' such as it was, each 'player' portrayed multiple characters and also guided the plot. I'd say we were quite immersed in our characters, but I'm not sure how much it counts toward what Mythusmage was saying since we also had to be detached (to play a scene where, say, I had both Fei and Krelian and the two were at cross purposes, I couldn't "side" with either of them).
The second best RPG experience I've had was a hair away from wargaming, an absolute tactical challenge in the d20 system, pitting optimized characters and tactics against a ruthless GM and CRs 4 to 8 above the party's average level.
I'd say about half the players (usually the ones who didn't bother to min/max and were happy to play cannon fodder if they got to go out in a blaze of glory, or at least gory) had zero emotional investment in their characters. The rest of us were immersed to one extent or another and very invested in our characters, but still thought of them as 'playing pieces,' so to speak.
Kid Charlemagne
I am the Very Model of a Modern Moderator
I move in and out of "immersion" based on the needs of the game (as determined by, well, me). Since we don't game the massive hours in a single game world like we did in college, I don't generally want to spend the time to roleplay out every single encounter. I pick and choose whih ones that I roleplay out, and of course the other players or DM affect that...
I'm not a story-focused player. But I'm not immersive either. I guess in the Edwards terminology, which I don't actually see as that helpful, I'm still a simulationist but I have a different idea of the knowability of my character and the world.
I can't get immersed in my character because I don't really know enough about him. There are things about his culture and events that have happened in his life that are written-up by me or the GM and there are events that have happened to him during the time we've played but it's a pretty small fraction of the whole character. Then there are the rules, things like knowledge skills, that allow me to approximate knowledge my characters has but I don't. Ultimately, though, my character is someone I get to know over the course of a campaign; much of my play isn't so much immersing myself in the character as it is about discovering who my character is. (Just as my play generally is more about discovering the nature of the world rather than imposing on it my own idea of what it is or should be.)
The characters I play are alien people from different cultures that I use my playing time to learn about. When I have to make a decision on my character's behalf, I make the best guess I can using his understanding of history and culture (background), personal experience (the previous play) and physics (the rules) as to what this fellow would do in this situation. That decision then becomes part of my information about the character and helps me to deduce more about what kind of guy he is the next time he has to make a decision.
I think the idea of immersion is premised on a level of knowability that, in my particular style of gaming, our characters don't really possess.
I've seen immersion be used to good effect in games, though. For some people, "getting into character" can give them access to the thoughts, feelings and values of their character on an emotional and intuitive level. For me, that is not a very effective way of knowing usually; my ways of knowing are more abstract and less experiential; but for some it is, and I encourage those individuals to play that way. That's not to say I'm not good at "acting" my character; but I'm not "feeling" my character when I do so.
EDIT: I can't resist arguing with mythusmage a little here: I don't see my style as "distancing" me from my character. My character and I start out far apart; I'm a human whereas he's an abstract construct centred on some numbers; I'm real and he's not; I'm from a modern society and he is not, etc. I think every playing style is essentially trying to solve the problem: "How do I bridge the gap between my character and myself?" For some, immersion works; for others, different tactics must be used.
I can't get immersed in my character because I don't really know enough about him. There are things about his culture and events that have happened in his life that are written-up by me or the GM and there are events that have happened to him during the time we've played but it's a pretty small fraction of the whole character. Then there are the rules, things like knowledge skills, that allow me to approximate knowledge my characters has but I don't. Ultimately, though, my character is someone I get to know over the course of a campaign; much of my play isn't so much immersing myself in the character as it is about discovering who my character is. (Just as my play generally is more about discovering the nature of the world rather than imposing on it my own idea of what it is or should be.)
The characters I play are alien people from different cultures that I use my playing time to learn about. When I have to make a decision on my character's behalf, I make the best guess I can using his understanding of history and culture (background), personal experience (the previous play) and physics (the rules) as to what this fellow would do in this situation. That decision then becomes part of my information about the character and helps me to deduce more about what kind of guy he is the next time he has to make a decision.
I think the idea of immersion is premised on a level of knowability that, in my particular style of gaming, our characters don't really possess.
I've seen immersion be used to good effect in games, though. For some people, "getting into character" can give them access to the thoughts, feelings and values of their character on an emotional and intuitive level. For me, that is not a very effective way of knowing usually; my ways of knowing are more abstract and less experiential; but for some it is, and I encourage those individuals to play that way. That's not to say I'm not good at "acting" my character; but I'm not "feeling" my character when I do so.
EDIT: I can't resist arguing with mythusmage a little here: I don't see my style as "distancing" me from my character. My character and I start out far apart; I'm a human whereas he's an abstract construct centred on some numbers; I'm real and he's not; I'm from a modern society and he is not, etc. I think every playing style is essentially trying to solve the problem: "How do I bridge the gap between my character and myself?" For some, immersion works; for others, different tactics must be used.
Similar Threads
