Is Immersion Important to You as a Player?

[pemerton]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but in my experience as a GM, player immersion seems to happen when evocative detail and constant evolution of the fiction are the name of the game.

Speaking as a player, immersion happens when what the GM is saying does not force me to ignore inhabiting - "being" - my character.

The paradigm of this is the plot hook or the "breadcrumb". Because that requires me to think purely as a participant in the game - OK, at this moment it's my job to decide that I as my character make this choice in order for the game to keep going

 

[Fenris-77]

Speaking as a player, immersion happens when what the GM is saying does not force me to ignore inhabiting - "being" - my character.

The paradigm of this is the plot hook or the "breadcrumb". Because that requires me to think purely as a participant in the game - OK, at this moment it's my job to decide that I as my character make this choice in order for the game to keep going

That's fair. My conception here is very much a part of how I run games, which doesn't really involve breadcrumbs or hooks in the traditional sense, but rather relies more on emergent fiction and PC choice as the prime mover.

 

[niklinna]

I'm of little familiarity with the concept. Do these background and interest change over time? My experience with PbtA was it does not. So, if you like reenacting episodic television, its appealing, but if you feel that makes caricatures instead of characters its not so appealing in the long term. YMMV.

In Blades in the Dark, interests and beliefs absolutely can change over time, along with friends & enemies (mechanically relevant). Even the background can change, or more accurately be revealed, over time. Blades could be run in episodic fashion I guess, but player character actions are so consequential, and have such an impact on the world and on themselves, that it would be missing a big chunk of what the system has to offer to only run it episodically.

 

[niklinna]

I don't know all the bells and whistles of BitD, but (for instance) spending stress to alleviate a consequence seems to me the same as spending a spell slot to alleviate a consequence. Or, further upstream, it seems to me that dialling back intended effect so as to improve position (if that's a thing in BitD - @niklinna or @haweyefan will know) seems to me the same as dialling back attack to improve defence in a D&D combat (eg 3E's Expertise feat or a barbarian dropping out of a reckless rage or even a fighter swapping from a two-handed to a one-handed weapon and equipping a shield).

That's close. You don't exactly expend stress to alleviate a consequence, though—in the sense of paying a set amount up front. You choose to resist a consequence, and roll your applicable attribute (Insight, Prowess, or Resolve), subtracting the result from six to get how much stress it winds up costing you. In other words, it's chancy! You could end up taking 4 or 5 stress! I've had it happen, even though I've maxed out all three attributes. It's very immersive.

What you do pay stress up front for, and in fixed amounts, is to push yourself for +1d on your action roll (2 stress), or to assist your pal, giving them +1d (1 stress).

Trading position for effect is similarly very immersive and well-wedded to the mechanics. You can be careful so that if things don't go well, you don't screw up too bad, but that restraint will reduce your likely effect on a success. Or, you can go for broke hoping for a great outcome, but if you flub it, the consequences will be multiple and dire.

 

[Fenris-77]

I find the stakes of trading position for effect very compelling, on both sides of the screen.

 

[payn]

That's fair. My conception here is very much a part of how I run games, which doesn't really involve breadcrumbs or hooks in the traditional sense, but rather relies more on emergent fiction and PC choice as the prime mover.

I too prefer the latter, but often have to settle for the former.

 

[pemerton]

Trading position for effect is similarly very immersive and well-wedded to the mechanics. You can be careful so that if things don't go well, you don't screw up too bad, but that restraint will reduce your likely effect on a success. Or, you can go for broke hoping for a great outcome, but if you flub it, the consequences will be multiple and dire.

The earliest RPG I know that has a version of this is Rolemaster (maybe there's something earlier, but I don't know it!). In RM melee combat, you have to choose your attack and your defence, round by round, out of the same pool (your weapon skill). In RM spell casting, you can choose to push for more powerful effects but at an increased risk of spell failure.

The fact that there is nothing comparable for archery in RM is what makes archer PCs less interesting in that system. The fact that there is nothing comparable for non-combat skills is what makes weapons-vs-spells a key axis of choice in PC build even though the system ostensibly is "play whatever you like".

The earliest RPG I know to generalise this sort of trade-off is HeroWars, where in extended contests you bid a certain number of action points with your action, and both the extent of your impact on the opposition and the extent of adverse consequences to you depend upon the action points bid. @chaochou has a lot of experience with this system.

I think that having some sort of capacity to try hard, or go "all in", is very supportive of inhabitation of character.

 

[pemerton]

That's fair. My conception here is very much a part of how I run games, which doesn't really involve breadcrumbs or hooks in the traditional sense, but rather relies more on emergent fiction and PC choice as the prime mover.

The reason I mentioned hooks and breadcrumbs because a lot of discussion of immersion in RPGing seems to focus on audience-style immersion in the narrated details - which can fit with breadcrumbs and plot hooks, if these are narrated with sufficient flair - but when it comes to inhabitation of character then no amount of narrative flair and evocative detail can overcome the problem that these things force me to leave my character and instead think about my obligations as a game player to follow the GM's story.

 

[Fenris-77]

The reason I mentioned hooks and breadcrumbs because a lot of discussion of immersion in RPGing seems to focus on audience-style immersion in the narrated details - which can fit with breadcrumbs and plot hooks, if these are narrated with sufficient flair - but when it comes to inhabitation of character then no amount of narrative flair and evocative detail can overcome the problem that these things force me to leave my character and instead think about my obligations as a game player to follow the GM's story.

I think hooks and breadcrumbs are things that invite engagement with secret GM knowledge, to whit some pre-prepped plan or narrative ginned up prior to play. I don't usually run my games with that sort of thing. Regardless of system, I tend to use player choices and outcomes to drive the fiction. I think that's an important distinction too, as the presence or absence of the same is pretty divisive in terms of 'how RPGs work', for whatever value you want to place on that particular statement.

 

[Reynard]

Trading position for effect is similarly very immersive and well-wedded to the mechanics.

That's the opposite of immersive, at least how I defined it for the purposes of the discussion. You are engaging the mechanics of the system to produce a result in the fiction. That's the "writer's room" I'm talking about. You're engaged, and you're having fun, but you certainly aren't inhabiting your character.

 

[pointofyou]

Maybe if someone says they are "immersed" or "inhabiting their character" it isn't a good idea to tell them they aren't.

 

[niklinna]

That's the opposite of immersive, at least how I defined it for the purposes of the discussion. You are engaging the mechanics of the system to produce a result in the fiction. That's the "writer's room" I'm talking about. You're engaged, and you're having fun, but you certainly aren't inhabiting your character.

The way I see it is, I'm engaging in a tradeoff I might very much make in real life, except instead of judging the physics of jumping a wide gap, or shooting a distant target, or how I understand how people respond to flattery, or whatever other real-world mechanics are in play, I am judging the mechanics that simulate/emulate/whatever-hot-button-verb-you-want-to-use those kinds of tradeoffs, and which simulate/etc. them so well that as a result I feel very much embedded and immersed in the situation, and I am absolutely, 100%, totally inhabiting my character's mental and emotional states in doing so. TTRPGs are neither reality nor larps, so something has to substitute for the various real-world systems at play. Otherwise I'd argue that by your standards, immersion in TTRPGs is simply impossible.

 

[Reynard]

The way I see it is, I'm engaging in a tradeoff I might very much make in real life, except instead of judging the physics of jumping a wide gap, or shooting a distant target, or how I understand how people respond to flattery, or whatever other real-world mechanics are in play, I am judging the mechanics that simulate/emulate/whatever-hot-button-verb-you-want-to-use those kinds of tradeoffs, and which simulate/etc. them so well that as a result I feel very much embedded and immersed in the situation, and I am absolutely, 100%, totally inhabiting my character's mental and emotional states in doing so. TTRPGs are neither reality nor larps, so something has to substitute for the various real-world systems at play. Otherwise I'd argue that by your standards, immersion in TTRPGs is simply impossible.

I mean, it isn't absolute. Nothing is. But let me try and illustrate the difference I am talking about.

The situation: a PC has run into an old rival and after some tense conversation, the player decides to engage in some violence.

Trad Game: Player says, "That's it! Eat steel!" Roll. Hit. Damage. Mechanics are involved, but they are pretty straight forward. GM: "NPC wipes the blood from his mouth, smiles ruefully, and says, 'Just remember, you started this.'"

Narrative Game: Player says, "That's it! Eat steel!" Roll. Dice come up with a success with a complication. The player says, "Okay, I guess I will hit him but he gets to hit me back?" Player 2 says, "Wait, it would be cool if you got your licks in but your sword got stuck in the table!" The GM says, "No, I think you hit him but he gets a chance to hit you back, Take2 harm."

That negotiation is where I think immersion takes the hit. Up until the time to adjudicate the die roll results, the immersion is equivalent. I'll even concede that based on building fiction previously, narrative games might even have better immersion in the lead up. But I think that once you ahve to put on the brakes to go through the process of determining what those dice results mean beyond simple algorithmic outcomes of smooth GM narration, immersion is broken.

Again, I am NOT saying it is any less fun or any less engaging or any less good. I am just asserting that the quality of immersion -- inhabiting the character inhabiting the world -- is reduced when you have to, as players and GMs, negotiate die rolls. As such, i think trad games with strong GM authority actually promote immersion over narrative games.

 

[niklinna]

I mean, it isn't absolute. Nothing is. But let me try and illustrate the difference I am talking about.

The situation: a PC has run into an old rival and after some tense conversation, the player decides to engage in some violence.

Trad Game: Player says, "That's it! Eat steel!" Roll. Hit. Damage. Mechanics are involved, but they are pretty straight forward. GM: "NPC wipes the blood from his mouth, smiles ruefully, and says, 'Just remember, you started this.'"

Narrative Game: Player says, "That's it! Eat steel!" Roll. Dice come up with a success with a complication. The player says, "Okay, I guess I will hit him but he gets to hit me back?" Player 2 says, "Wait, it would be cool if you got your licks in but your sword got stuck in the table!" The GM says, "No, I think you hit him but he gets a chance to hit you back, Take2 harm."

Oh, hm, that's a rare scenario in my games with @Manbearcat (and some other GMs, but they aren't on enworld so I can't tag them!). Sometimes another player will chime in about a devil's bargain. But when an action comes up, I'll describe what I want to do and achieve, and the GM will say, okay, if you succeed this is what you'll get, and but here are the likely complications/consequences (which can include "you don't know"). From there I'll decide if I want to trade position for effect, just like I would in evaluating a real-life decision to act in risky situations. Or not! I might be in a frame of mind where I just want to get things done and take the situation as presented. Either way I am inhabiting my character's state of mind in the situation. But, there's little dithering about what the specific outcome is once the dice fall.

I have been in games where the situation devolves into a protracted back-and-forth negotation, and yes, that definitely breaks immersion. But I've actually seen it more often in traditional games than games like Blades in the Dark. For example, I've been in a number of traditional games where there's that one player who's like, "Can I do X and get result Y?" and the GM says no that won't really work like you want. "Well how about if I do A to get result B?" And the GM says, "No, that would make C happen." And so on. Such players tend to do it frequently enough that it gets really tiresome.

So I guess it's more about how the group handles situations than the system being used.

That negotiation is where I think immersion takes the hit. Up until the time to adjudicate the die roll results, the immersion is equivalent. I'll even concede that based on building fiction previously, narrative games might even have better immersion in the lead up. But I think that once you ahve to put on the brakes to go through the process of determining what those dice results mean beyond simple algorithmic outcomes of smooth GM narration, immersion is broken.

Working out tradeoffs is more immersive to me than just jumping into a situation, or having an action result in either success or nada. The latter I particularly find to be immersion-breaking.

Again, I am NOT saying it is any less fun or any less engaging or any less good. I am just asserting that the quality of immersion -- inhabiting the character inhabiting the world -- is reduced when you have to, as players and GMs, negotiate die rolls. As such, i think trad games with strong GM authority actually promote immersion over narrative games.

I've played both types of games, and generally had the opposite experience, so here we are!

 

[Lanefan]

When playing in a TTRPG, how important is immersion -- defined vaguely as "inhabiting your character inhabiting the world" -- to your enjoyment of the game?

Do you endeavor to experience the world of the game through your character and only your character?

When possible, yes; though those times are infrequent and all-too-often fleeting.

Do the rules matter for this, or is it more about the nature of play at the table? Are you okay seeing the sets and strings as it were?

Far too often I find rules and mechanics get in the way, particularly when it comes to rules that try to over-write or ignore what's been role-played in-character at the table.

Do you act, speak and even think as your character for the duration?

Act? Not really, as I'm sitting at a table rather than doing whatever my character is doing. Speak? Yes, when I can. Think? Very much so, unless pulled out by rules considerations or off-topic table talk.

If immersion is important to you, how do you react to other players or the GM when it isn't as important to them?

Situationally dependent; could be anything from 'grin and bear it' to 'grumble a bit' to 'yell at someone'.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure I suppose. What I found is the XP made it a great limiter of the game. "Should we do X?" always came down to whether it netted XP or not.

That's an issue with those specific players, I think.

If it didn't, they wouldn't engage. "Are we high enough level to do that?"

"Are we high enough level to do that?" is a perfectly valid in-character question to ask if rephrased as something like "Do we have the chops to pull that off?".

Wont engage unless they think they got enough XP to do it. Eventually, it leads to whats on the character sheet and if its off, then it cant/shouldnt be done type thinking.

Not for everyone mind you, but for many a folk I have played with. So, I stopped using it and an entire world opened up to me. YMMV.

This comes back to a drum I beat now and then: what is a player's main reason for playing the game.

For some, it's the thrill of levelling up on a frequent and regular basis, and doing whatever it takes to accomplish this.
For some, it's the pleasure of being someone else in a different environment/world; level-ups etc. are only mildly or not at all important.
For some, it's similar to reading a book: they just want to see what comes next in the story and maybe help push it along a bit.
Etc.

Obviously there's some overlap, but in general the immersionists would mostly be in the second group above. The first group are the sorts you've encounted in the past, it seems. The third group are at one extreme the "passenger" players who do nothing other than ride the GM's railroad, and at the other extreme are the players who maybe don't even need a GM (these can also be hard-core immersionists, of course).

 

[payn]

That's an issue with those specific players, I think.

"Are we high enough level to do that?" is a perfectly valid in-character question to ask if rephrased as something like "Do we have the chops to pull that off?".

Sure, if you have any reasonable information to decide that. I've had players assume an interesting hook was just beyond them and/or not worth pursuing and looking for a bigger fish. If there was in game reasons for doing so, I wouldn't begrudge them.

This comes back to a drum I beat now and then: what is a player's main reason for playing the game.

For some, it's the thrill of levelling up on a frequent and regular basis, and doing whatever it takes to accomplish this.
For some, it's the pleasure of being someone else in a different environment/world; level-ups etc. are only mildly or not at all important.
For some, it's similar to reading a book: they just want to see what comes next in the story and maybe help push it along a bit.
Etc.

Obviously there's some overlap, but in general the immersionists would mostly be in the second group above. The first group are the sorts you've encounted in the past, it seems. The third group are at one extreme the "passenger" players who do nothing other than ride the GM's railroad, and at the other extreme are the players who maybe don't even need a GM (these can also be hard-core immersionists, of course).

I think most tables are some mix of reasons, playstyles, etc... For myself, ditching XP allows me to dial back some of the game side engagement and refocus on the immersion piece. Though, I am certainly aware how difficult some players find a game that doesn't lead them around. They tend to do much better in adventure paths than open sandboxes. YMMV.

 

[Reynard]

I've played both types of games, and generally had the opposite experience, so here we are!

And I should say that my experiences with FitD games are limited compared to my trad game experience and it is totally possible that with different groups or different FitD game things might have been different. My trad game experience is really broad and I consider myself really well practiced at getting a specific experience using a trad system I know well. I admit it is entirely possible that with similar experience with "play to find out" fiction first games i would get similar results.

Ultimately it probably has more to do with the GM and player buy in than the system, but those have been my experiences thus far.

 

[Lanefan]

Speaking as a player, immersion happens when what the GM is saying does not force me to ignore inhabiting - "being" - my character.

The paradigm of this is the plot hook or the "breadcrumb". Because that requires me to think purely as a participant in the game - OK, at this moment it's my job to decide that I as my character make this choice in order for the game to keep going

Well, first off, if the GM presents the hook such as to cause you-as-player to stop and think way this then IMO the GM did a poor job of presenting said hook.

More importantly, IMO, with full immersion metagame considerations like that simply don't enter into the equation. If your character is someone who would turn her nose up at the presented hook and do something else instead, then that should be exactly what she does; GM's prep be damned - unless you've a GM who is simply incapable of winging it.

Put another way, the social contract at the table takes a distant second place to the social contract among the characters (if there is one). The only important bit is "what happens in character stays in character".

This is in large part why I support "do what the character would do" as a (or even the) foundation of play, even if it results in PvP or a split party or whatever; as these metagame* concerns are awful for immersion and, as you note, sometimes lead to stark inconsistencies in roleplaying.

* - I keep mistyping that word as 'meatgame'...

 

[Umbran]

But I think that once you ahve to put on the brakes to go through the process of determining what those dice results mean beyond simple algorithmic outcomes of smooth GM narration, immersion is broken.

So, it might be. If it is broken, it might be broken for a second, or an hour.

We can agree that immersion is a state of mind, right? So, unless someone is born immersed, and stays immersed for their entire life, it is a state people can enter and leave.

As a matter of personal experience, breaking immersion comes in degrees, it isn't all or nothing. So, a quick diversion into mechanics or meta-discussion may not really ruin the experience.

Heck, I've had D&D sessions with pretty decent immersion, and I could go through an entire combat, with all the pauses when I have nothing to do but wait for others to go through their actions, and with all the mechanical discussion, and had immersion each round when it came back around to me, when I'd gotten up and gone to the bathroom again as the combat round went by.