Is Immersion Important to You as a Player?

[pemerton]

in the context of playing a game, and I'll state this intentionally hyperbolically, I am always worried about what choice I need to make next, and if it's the wrong one.

<snip>

I'm juggling trying to be mechanically sound, narratively appropriate, tonally fitting, and do it with the speed the scene demands, while respecting the desires of the rest of the table, and worst of all, trying to come up with something interesting.

Now, I know, I don't need to make the "right" choice. The game will carry on, there are other players who are also responsible for steering it, what different players want will occasionally be in conflict through no fault, sometimes the "wrong" choice can end up being more interesting, sometimes/in some games there's not really any such thing as a wrong choice, and the point here is to have fun more than it is being successful. But as much as I know that, and it's something I'm trying to work on in several arenas, something that actively helps me when confronted with this stress is the ability to think "Well, at least I have the relevant information to make it." In games, what that readily available relevant information is, to me, is the setting details. One less unknown factor to complicate the decision making process.

One feature of those RPGs that I tend to enjoy more, or at least find more serious (and hence more immersive, as per my first post in this thread), is that they don't have a notion of the right choice or the mechanically sound choice that is independent of what should I (as my character) do.

A reduction in setting details helps with this - rather than fit my decision to the setting as authored by someone else, the setting will unfold in a way that fits the decisions my character is called upon to make.

 

[Xamnam]

One feature of RPGs that I tend to enjoy more, or at least find more serious (and hence more immersive, as per my first post in this thread), is that they don't have a notion of the right choice or the mechanically sound choice that is independent of what should I (as my character) do.

A reduction in setting details helps with this - rather than fit my decision to the setting as authored by someone else, the setting will unfold in a way that fits the decisions my character is called upon to make.

Mechanical optimization is the easiest thing for me to give a backseat, thankfully, and why I tend to shy away crunchy games, or tables that enjoy and expect optimization. However, similarly to setting details, with games at the level of 5e, rules aren't too hard for me to internalize, and the not-bad option usually doesn't require much meta-level thought.

When I say "right choice", it's a fairly direction function of "what I as my character should do". The biggest component. If I'm a character that belongs to the world and table, hopefully tonality/genre appropriateness comes as a given. Setting details are what give me confidence in crafting that character, and in knowing what my character would do. Lack of confidence creates stress*, and that stress brings me right back to an awareness of playing a game rather than being the character, which rips me out of any state of immersion.

If I know the setting will actively fold to endorse the choices I make, then I can be confident, but I'll also be much more aware of my author-state, and that likewise pulls me out. Not that that is not its own type of engaging, but there, immersion is worlds harder for me to experience.


*In a situation where I as character should have some degree of confidence, but I as player don't. Not referring to where my character and I should have an equal lack of knowledge. There's stress there, but that's the good kind, of taking the world seriously.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm using illusionism here to criticize the idea players should not know the rules of the game they are playing. It sounds like you're proposing that TTRPGs with less rules provide a greater sense of immersion, which I'm not totally sure interacts with my proposed definition.

I really hate when people do that. Here you've usurped a definition used in discussions of D&D and other RPG play and just decided to give it an all new definition. Illusionism is the removal of player agency by giving the illusion of choice, and is a form of railroading. It's not at all about immersion.

When someone does this, theyjust end up derailing threads and causing confusion as people don't understand what they are talking about.

It would all come down to how you are resolving conflicts in the shared fiction. If everyone generally agrees about character capabilities then you might never actually need to roll out a resolution mechanic other than the default "collectively decide what happens" and no one will ever encounter dissonance, which I would absolutely agree is an immersive state of affairs. I'm generally skeptical that such a state can be maintained by adults in an open-ended roleplaying situation, especially one that focuses on combat, and especially when you're in a fantasy or sci-fi or other setting that deviates significantly from normally experienced reality.

Immersion is helped by minimizing the rolling of the dice or having to stop and look up a rule. I've been in many games were rolls don't happen nearly as often than what the default game assumes. Rolling, though, is pretty much inevitable in D&D. All you can do is minimize it so that immersion is not disrupted too much and it's easy to flow back into character and re-immerse yourself.

And yes, combat in D&D, ruins immersion. There's far too much rolling and looking at sheets and such to immerse yourself.

I think we're just quibbling over how much information about risk is necessary. I think D&D's 5% increments are about as fine-grained as I'd want software running on my brain to go, and I could probably be comfortably with a 10% standard, but I would side-eye anyone who didn't evaluate a 70% and an 80% chance of success differently. After that, we're just asking about which adjectives should indicate which DCs, and I generally think that's improved by putting them down in manuals.

I just pulled that number out of the air. Put it at 75% if you want it to happen in increments of 5%. That wasn't the point. The point is that if the DM is correctly describing the environment, the player has a very good idea of what his chances are.

 

[pemerton]

You don't need to know that success is 78% to make a good, informed decision and have agency, though. You just need to know that it's more likely than not, but with a decent chance for failure. That much should be evident to you by the situation, assuming the DM has described the environment correctly.

I just pulled that number out of the air. Put it at 75% if you want it to happen in increments of 5%. That wasn't the point. The point is that if the DM is correctly describing the environment, the player has a very good idea of what his chances are.

These claims don't strike me as very plausible.

Suppose I know my PC is clever and learned (INT 16, level 5, trained in a knowledge skill). The GM tells me that I have heard rumour of an ancient legend about a mysterious whatever-it-is, to whih my knowledge skill is relevant. The GM has also, in some previous narration, mentioned that such-and-such a place has the greatest library in the known world. How likely is it that I can learn more about this thing by visiting that library?

The GM tells me that a chasm is close to 20' wide. I know that m PC is strong and fit (STR 16, level 5, trained in Athletics). How likely is it that I can jump the cavern?

The GM tells us all that we're shipwrecked, on a shore that looks pretty barren, with only dunes and some stunted grass and shrubs as far as the eye can sea. My PC is a perceptive outdoors type (WIS 16, level 5, trained in Survival). How likely is it that I can find food and water for me and my companions?

Those are just the first three examples that I thought of. I think many more could be generated. They all turn on the fact that D&D does not establish any particular correlation between a stat/skill bonus and some measurable level of human ability, nor between reasonably general descriptions of various situations and concrete DCs.

 

[Pedantic]

Those are just the first three examples that I thought of. I think many more could be generated. They all turn on the fact that D&D does not establish any particular correlation between a stat/skill bonus and some measurable level of human ability, nor between reasonably general descriptions of various situations and concrete DCs.

It doesn't now. There were definitely times in the past it did (with varying degrees of usefulness/specificity for different tasks), though the game has definitely been moving away from defined skill DCs for a while. It's my single biggest frustration in RPG design trends. Objective, specified, player/GM transparent DCs are what I most desperately want from a tabletop RPG system.

 

[pemerton]

It doesn't now. There were definitely times in the past it did (with varying degrees of usefulness/specificity for different tasks), though the game has definitely been moving away from defined skill DCs for a while. It's my single biggest frustration in RPG design trends. Objective, specified, player/GM transparent DCs are what I most desperately want from a tabletop RPG system.

HARP, and the RM clone Against the Darkmaster, probably give you what you want. And RM unified is on its way too!

EDIT: So do Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, but I have a vague recollection from other threads that these aren't appealing to you.

 

[Maxperson]

These claims don't strike me as very plausible.

Suppose I know my PC is clever and learned (INT 16, level 5, trained in a knowledge skill). The GM tells me that I have heard rumour of an ancient legend about a mysterious whatever-it-is, to whih my knowledge skill is relevant. The GM has also, in some previous narration, mentioned that such-and-such a place has the greatest library in the known world. How likely is it that I can learn more about this thing by visiting that library?

Why would you know? You've never been to this library, so you don't know anything other than it has the greatest library in the world. This isn't even a skill check.

The GM tells me that a chasm is close to 20' wide. I know that m PC is strong and fit (STR 16, level 5, trained in Athletics). How likely is it that I can jump the cavern?

You can jump farther with athletics. Presumably you've talked to the DM prior to this and know how he determines the extra distance from the rolls. This should not vary, so you would know what your chances are. So if this particular DM sets the base DC at 10 for an extra foot, and you get one more foot for every 2 you beat the base DC by, you can figure it out.

The GM tells us all that we're shipwrecked, on a shore that looks pretty barren, with only dunes and some stunted grass and shrubs as far as the eye can sea. My PC is a perceptive outdoors type (WIS 16, level 5, trained in Survival). How likely is it that I can find food and water for me and my companions?

That doesn't sound like it has been described very well. Perhaps you should investigate further to see if you can get more details from the DM. The chances should be fairly high for you, though. Lots of roots are edible and there will be insects, snakes, etc. to catch.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes, immersion (logical consistency) is important me.
What is being communicated to me by the DMs and players is usually visualised in my mind. If some of it does not make logical sense immersion is broken and the game starts becoming more mechanical in nature and if not seen to could be reduced to a boardgame. At that point no one is engrossed by their characters, story becomes a tertiary objective or even worse a by-product.