Is Immersion Important to You as a Player?

[innerdude]

I think a significant difficulty faced by this topic is that while lots of people use the word immersion to describe a play state they really enjoy, I suspect that we are actually talking about a rather enormous range of actual experiences, rather than some sort of zen-like satori moment that's actually (ostensibly) the same for everyone.

Yeah, for sure. For me, there's a difference between "engagement" and "immersion" as well.

I can be fully engaged, having fun, feeling the tension of a scene/combat, enjoying each throw of the dice and reading its results, and be nowhere close to being in an "immersive state."

 

[Reynard]

One of the more contentious claims in the RPG hobby is that "trad" play is both privileged and unique in its ability to generate immersive play---that the consistency of the shared imaginary space is paramount to generating immersive play, and the only way to get that consistency is to give GM unlimited authorial control over the game world.

My experience the past 5 years tells a much different story. GM authorship is a non-sequitur as it relates to immersion generally.

Is that a thing people say?
I think the thing that reduces or breaks immersion is having to pull yourself out of the fiction to deal with the mechanics. Some trad games (especially those with light and consistent rules) minimize that, particularly whne everyone knows them. But I imagine that is true of certain narrative games as well. But if you have to reach for your character sheet, or "break character" to interpret dice results or negotiate the fiction, you are by necessity going to be breaking immersion as well -- regardless of game style. I think it is more common for certain kinds of modern narrative games to ask participants to remove themselves a level from immersion in order to engage the system to achieve specific "story" goals, but certainly many trad games require similar degrees of immersion breaking to engage complex mechanics or negotiate weird corner cases.

I think (contrary to my earlier opinion on the subject; see, discussions can lead to new points of view!) I think the defining factor isn't actually trad versus narrative, it is how much the game asks the player to do separate from what their character is doing. "I swing my sword. I hit! I do 0 damage as I slice through his stupid face" is immersion breaking at least a little, but less so than , "I swing my sword. I got a rank 3 hit with a 12% chance of crit. So that's 14 damage minus armor rating, plus a 3 round movement penalty. I guess I stab him in the thigh?"

 

[innerdude]

Is that a thing people say?

Yeah. A lot. I would know. I used to be one of the ones saying it the loudest.

But most of the time it's not even said out loud. It operates as a profound a priori assumption of just about all RPG play that focuses on D&D.

"How can you be immersed if the world isn't consistent? How can the world be consistent if the GM isn't the one who decides what is or isn't true about the world? How could I possibly trust my players to generate fiction, when they'll most assuredly break something I've already pre-authored and make it obsolete or non-sensical or overpowered or special snow-flake-y?"

I think the thing that reduces or breaks immersion is having to pull yourself out of the fiction to deal with the mechanics. Some trad games (especially those with light and consistent rules) minimize that, particularly whne everyone knows them. But I imagine that is true of certain narrative games as well. But if you have to reach for your character sheet, or "break character" to interpret dice results or negotiate the fiction, you are by necessity going to be breaking immersion as well -- regardless of game style. I think it is more common for certain kinds of modern narrative games to ask participants to remove themselves a level from immersion in order to engage the system to achieve specific "story" goals, but certainly many trad games require similar degrees of immersion breaking to engage complex mechanics or negotiate weird corner cases.

The thing is, most of the narrative mechanics aren't asking you to deal with the numbers to extrapolate the outcome, they're asking you to extrapolate the outcome based on the current fiction, the results of the action, and the assumed effects on the gameworld. In my experience, that can often be done much more rapidly, coherently, and in full agreement of the group.

I think (contrary to my earlier opinion on the subject; see, discussions can lead to new points of view!) I think the defining factor isn't actually trad versus narrative, it is how much the game asks the player to do separate from what their character is doing. "I swing my sword. I hit! I do 0 damage as I slice through his stupid face" is immersion breaking at least a little, but less so than , "I swing my sword. I got a rank 3 hit with a 12% chance of crit. So that's 14 damage minus armor rating, plus a 3 round movement penalty. I guess I stab him in the thigh?"

GURPS combat is the most profoundly immersion-shattering RPG process I have experienced, or will likely ever experience.

 

[Reynard]

I should note that I am not making any value judgements about immersion. I personally don't think it is particularly important, though I have experienced moments of it here and there that were profoundly affecting. But that was largely by accident and I don't make a huge amount of effort to foster immersion for myself. But by the same token, some players in my gaming circle find it very important, so when I run games for those people I try and provide an environment that facilitates immersion for those players that enjoy it -- and in so doing occasionally find myself being immersed at moments even as GM.

 

[payn]

defined vaguely as "inhabiting your character inhabiting the world"

For me, the world part has to come first. I don't need novel upon novel for a setting to work, but I do appreciate a GM who makes some effort to lean into the material. I especially enjoy player's guides to campaigns and adventure paths. Even better when the system has traits, feats, and skills that lean into backgrounds specifically tied to them. These things really connect me to the campaign/setting. I know some folks were asking why a lot of my previous posts were focused on the world and campaign narrative and fiction. I need it in place because my process is that character always follows. I don't do intricate backstories as I want the character to develop organically. I try to provide that environment when I run games myself.

On the flip side, I do also enjoy bespoke experiences and generic setting games, but usually as a game of the month club environment. Something to try out a new genre and/or system that doesn't require much immersion. I find a lot of beer and pretzels and "lets just play anything" types easier to get along with in these types of games.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll just comment that my own tendency is not to play FTF immersively, but that has far more to do with the tendency for voices and appearances to pull me out of it than mechanics. I did a far better job back when I was MUSHing decades ago, and it wasn't like things like typing and using commands was any intrinsically easier than mechanics.

 

[Fenris-77]

OK, so apparently the fact that immersion might be many different things isn't an issue. Cool. As you were gents.

 

[Bill Zebub]

OK, so apparently the fact that immersion might be many different things isn't an issue. Cool. As you were gents.

This is what I've been trying to point out. A definition, without specific examples (and counter-examples) is nearly useless here.

The player who wants a detailed, coherent world (that is, "verisimilitude") will say they are "inhabiting" their character as they explore this world.

The player who takes pride in choosing actions as they believe a gender non-binary half-orc spore druid would, making sub-optimal decisions and suppressing player knowledge in order to stay in character, will say they are "inhabiting" their character.

The player who feels a moment of panic when realizing a TPK is coming, and genuinely mourns the death of a beloved NPC, will say they are "inhabiting" their character.

The player who is focused on the tactical situation, counting grid squares and computing odds in their head, and imagining the cinematic in their heads, visualizing each blow and parry, will say they are "inhabiting" their character.

 

[Reynard]

This is what I've been trying to point out. A definition, without specific examples (and counter-examples) is nearly useless here.

The player who wants a detailed, coherent world (that is, "verisimilitude") will say they are "inhabiting" their character as they explore this world.

The player who takes pride in choosing actions as they believe a gender non-binary half-orc spore druid would, making sub-optimal decisions and suppressing player knowledge in order to stay in character, will say they are "inhabiting" their character.

The player who feels a moment of panic when realizing a TPK is coming, and genuinely mourns the death of a beloved NPC, will say they are "inhabiting" their character.

The player who is focused on the tactical situation, counting grid squares and computing odds in their head, and imagining the cinematic in their heads, visualizing each blow and parry, will say they are "inhabiting" their character.

I think trying to define "immersion" specifically makes discussion harder, not easier. Basically, if you nail down a "correct" definition, then you exclude or at least antagonize everyone that does not agree with that definition. But if you keep the definition broad so that everyone knows we are talking about immersion (whatever that means to you, within some reasonable but relatively broad definition) we can talk about whether it is important or not. Which was my intent. I explicitly did not want to get into the weeds of trying to define it for that very reason.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think trying to define "immersion" specifically makes discussion harder, not easier. Basically, if you nail down a "correct" definition, then you exclude or at least antagonize everyone that does not agree with that definition. But if you keep the definition broad so that everyone knows we are talking about immersion (whatever that means to you, within some reasonable but relatively broad definition) we can talk about whether it is important or not. Which was my intent. I explicitly did not want to get into the weeds of trying to define it for that very reason.

I agree. I think I miscommunicated. I didn't mean that a definition should be provided for immersion, I meant that if anybody wants to talk about what they think immersion is, they should just describe it...carefully...and use that description instead of a word or phrase.

I think "immersion" is pretty much a useless word since it evokes so many different things for different people, some of them contradictory with each other. (And even worse when used in "immersion breaking" which is really just a synonym for "pet peeve of mine.")

My criticism of "inhabit your character" is just that it isn't any more specific. Anybody who thinks they know what immersion means will just think that "inhabit your character" means the same thing.

(I suppose unless by 'immersion' one just means that they are so wrapped up in getting XP and magic items that they don't notice their hunger, the passing of time, or their own body odor. But even then...."inhabit your character"? Maybe. Especially if playing a hungry, smelly barbarian.)