Is Immersion Important to You as a Player?

I understand the reasoning to broaden the definition and wouldn't be against it in general. But if "immersion" is used as the label for the general category, then I feel there is a need to have another label, or a set of qualifiers for the more specific category (something like "character immersion" or "impersonation immersion") to allow a useful discussion about the experience, which started this thread.

Both of your are good but I’ve always just thought Traditional Actor Stance does the necessary work.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

hawkeyefan

Legend
To be clear, I am saying that the system and playstyle of FitD games is what keeps it from being "immersion." By the definition I gave in the OP, you cannot be immersed in zoomed out writer room mode. They're antithetical.

I don’t think that “writer’s room” is an accurate nor fair assessment of FitD games. There can be the “zoom” you’re talking about, and perhaps in those moments, players aren’t immersed in their characters as you’ve defined it. But that’s far from the only thing that’s happening during the game. There are times where players are making decisions for their characters in a manner that perfectly fits your definition.

And as I’ve been trying to explain, those zoomed out moments can enhance the immersion for those zoomed in moments. I spend the average session of Blades much more in character than out of character.

So what you should do is not tell someone else that they’re not experiencing immersion because the game they’re playing doesn’t allow it, but instead you should say that you’ve failed to achieve immersion when playing such games.
 



payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
I think it depends. What are the XP triggers? Who gets to choose them? Who gets to decide if they apply?

There’s no reason the mechanical levers can’t be in synch with the narrative/logical goals in the fiction.
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. If it didn't, they wouldn't engage. "Are we high enough level to do that?" 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.
 

hawkeyefan

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

Oh I absolutely agree that there can be misalignment in that regards. Where the game rewards something other than what might make sense for the characters.

But what if the players were free to determine their own xp triggers? Then they’re only going to be pursuing things that they want to pursue.

What if the xp triggers are suitably broad? In Spire, for instance, characters earn an advance when they effect a change in the city. They gain a new ability depending on the scope of the change. A minor ability for a small local change, a medium ability for a district wide change, or an major advance for a citywide change.

The loose definition of change allows the players to pursue all kinds of things… it doesn’t force them into one path.

There are many ways to try and prevent what you’re talking about.
 

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

Its a little fuzzy to me what is happening here and with the perception of/orientation to xp triggers. Here are two ways that xp triggers can work in service of play:

1) They can signal to the group and the GM specifically “this is a dramatic need of my character…frame conflicts around this thing (which could be the resolution of a relationship or an oath declared or the testing of a belief).”

2) Incentivizing best practices within the game’s premise (such as xp on a miss incentivizing “be bold” and “live dangerously” and “work outside of your comfort zone” or xp when you achieve +/- rating with another character incentivizing “explore your relationships”).

When handled (perception and application) appropriately, this meta should work in concert to focus the content of play on protagonism and “self-discovery” (self here being the PC). Players are focusing on inhabitation and self-discovery by merely playing their PCs hard within the scope of their thematic means. And they don’t have to “look for xp” or “the GM’s signposted plot”(because the players are doing the signposting). Characters will naturally progress and change merely by players “playing hard” in relation to the stuff that matters to their characters.
 

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
Oh I absolutely agree that there can be misalignment in that regards. Where the game rewards something other than what might make sense for the characters.

But what if the players were free to determine their own xp triggers? Then they’re only going to be pursuing things that they want to pursue.
I do like putting it in the players hands, however, I'm still weary about the game becoming too singular for particular actions.
What if the xp triggers are suitably broad? In Spire, for instance, characters earn an advance when they effect a change in the city. They gain a new ability depending on the scope of the change. A minor ability for a small local change, a medium ability for a district wide change, or an major advance for a citywide change.

The loose definition of change allows the players to pursue all kinds of things… it doesn’t force them into one path.

There are many ways to try and prevent what you’re talking about.
Narrative triggers are much more to my liking. I believe that would raise the engagement in a direction I would find more suitable. Combo that with player input on those goals and triggers and I like where this is going.
 
Last edited:

Voadam

Legend
Immersion as a player is a big enjoyment for me that enriches the gaming experience. In both roleplaying out talking interactions in character and experiencing events and the world, immersion is a big joy of the game.

I am not always great at developing a unique character, but I like getting into immersive roleplay even if it is not that distinct to a character.

The most I have done for a PC accent was probably a gunslinger character with a western drawl always saying "Ma'am" to every woman and using phrases like "I reckon". That was fun.

I also enjoy the mechanics of games such as the back and forth of D&D combat, and the second person play of achieving things in downtime activities.

It is not a big deal to me if others are not as immersive, but I do get annoyed if there is a total subversion of immersion, particularly with things like ridiculous names or concepts that do not work for the particular game or just play that tries to tank the experience.
 
Last edited:

payn

I don't believe in the no-win scenario
When handled (perception and application) appropriately, this meta should work in concert to focus the content of play on protagonism and “self-discovery” (self here being the PC). Players are focusing on inhabitation and self-discovery by merely playing their PCs hard within the scope of their thematic means. And they don’t have to “look for xp” or “the GM’s signposted plot”(because the players are doing the signposting). Characters will naturally progress and change merely by players “playing hard” in relation to the stuff that matters to their characters.
This is how it should work in theory, however, in practice it always leads away from the immersion and engagement I prefer.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top