NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9556460" data-attributes="member: 42582">When it comes to my desired relationship to the character I am playing, I more often use "inhabitation" than "immersion".One puzzle for me is that players who talk about immersion as a goal of play often seem to also prefer a "fish out of water" style to PC building, setting and situation, etc - and so whatever exactly they mean by "immersion", it can't pertain to the nature of or relationship to the character. Most often, I see the notion being applied to setting, although I think in two different sense: (1) where a setting is immersive if it is (near-)complete, pre-planned, has bestiaries and baedekers and the like; (2) where a setting is presented by the GM so that the players can "roll with it" without having to reckon with it being an authored thing. Though (1) and (2) are different, they may often be related in this sense: (1) can facilitate (2), even though it is not necessary (a GM can make up (2)-ish stuff without prep, if they are imaginative enough) and not sufficient (a GM might lack the skill to use the (1)-ish stuff to do (2)).A side-effect of (2) is that it tends to mean it is the GM who is deciding what is at stake in many situations - and often secretly, revealing what was at stake down the track when the setting "dictates" that this be so. (I should add: (2)-ish-ness is on the player side; the GM who doesn't reckon with the setting being an authored thing is probably not going to be able to do their job.) So I think there is a tension between (2)-ish play and player agency in play.</blockquote>

Verification