Immersion?

[John Dallman]

I wrote about immersion at some length in issue 5 of The Path of Cunning, the GURPS fanzine I co-edit. It's a bit long to re[peat all of here, but the 'zine is free for the downloading.

To summarise, immersion is my desired state when role-playing, both as player and GM. It isn't something I can do immediately with a new character or a new setting. I have to get used to them first.

It means playing the game, as far as possible, from inside the character’s head. Ignoring the things that they don’t know, solving problems the way they would, being them as well as I can achieve. Playing in "Actor stance" is necessary to achieve this, but is not sufficient by itself.

The thing I like most about immersing myself in a character, setting aside parts of my own identity and personality, is that it lets me escape from the limitations of my own personality. I have been more eloquent, more devious, and more ingenious while in character than I can manage as myself. Inspiration happens to me in-character, in accordance with the character’s personality rather than my own.

When GMing, when I have run a setting for a few tens of sessions, thought about it quite a lot during that time, and started to realise how it really works, I start to instinctively understand what’s going on. Session preparation becomes brief and general, although I try to think of names beforehand, being poor at improvising those. As the characters act, I can respond as the setting almost without thought, and with a reasonable level of consistency. I don’t always know why things in the setting are a certain way, although I usually realise after a while.

Immersed in actor stance, some things that are important in other play styles don’t seem relevant to me. I have no interest in genre tropes, because I’m not emulating a different form of story, like a novel or a film. I’m creating story through the medium of role-playing, which is its own form, and works best when it’s done in its own way. Jokes and references made by the characters are fine; some of them engage in humour to relieve the tension of the situation.

This is primary creation, not adaptation. It is on a small scale, with a limited audience, but that doesn’t make it worthless: done right, it can be very entertaining. I don’t regard writing novels or making TV programmes as “better” or “superior” forms of story creation, just different ones.

 

[TiQuinn]

I know what immersion is and I love it when it happens, but I also know immersion is not like an on/off switch; it’s something that is built up over time, and to me, is not an easily repeatable thing - there’s no magic formula for it. It also find it has very little to do with the character one’s playing or the lore of the setting. It usually comes from the drama of a particular moment in a game.

 

[payn]

Immersion is a subjective thing. There is no example of something that will provide immersion for everyone. So, when a person uses the term I assume they are talking from their own perspective. Some find that to not be useful becasue they can not logic slam the discussion into an argument. Though, for me its useful in a general sense and I enjoy listening and learning about why folks like RPGs.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

If you want immersion, go to a swimming pool.

 

[TwoSix]

I value immersion the way that I understand it, but what I mean by immersion is different than what appears to be to the normal way people use it online.

 

[Reynard]

While I appreciate moments of immersion that can spontaneously occur during play, I don't consider immersion necessary for a good game. I don't chase it and I can actually be annoyed when players value it above all else.

 

[TwoSix]

While I appreciate moments of immersion that can spontaneously occur during play, I don't consider immersion necessary for a good game. I don't chase it and I can actually be annoyed when players value it above all else.

Agree with this. I prefer when players make choices that drive the story and conflict forward, rather than chasing "immersion".

 

[Reynard]

Agree with this. I prefer when players make choices that drive the story and conflict forward, rather than chasing "immersion".

The game part of the game is the majority of fun for me, so I prefer when players engage with that aspect as their primary focus.

 

[Pedantic]

We're already running into definitions. I prefer to understand immersion as a scale that measures the distance between character and player decision making thus that less space->more immersion. That routinely conflicts with another (usually unstated) definition you run across, which is something like "immersion is when decision making transcends mechanical interaction."

Those produce conflicting design goals, and that only gets worse if you include the set of people who prioritize flawed/complex characterization as the primary driver of immersion.

 

[GMMichael]

Immersion is when the players say, "remember when you shoved your polearm up the rot-wampster's butt," instead of saying "remember when we were playing D&D and you rolled that nat 20?"

Or it's whenever this guy starts talking:

It occurs to me that one reason I don't like the typical actual play video is that there's zero immersion for me. Not only am I watching a table of "funny" players instead of feeling like I'm in the story, but I'm sitting behind a screen, watching a table of "funny" players. The best ones provide some post-production images, animation, and/or sound effects.

One bonus for actual plays: the players are better at keeping the dice on the table than in-person players.