That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[aramis erak]

While any x.p. system is bound to have some downsides, I like x.p. == gold better than x.p. for monsters. I find PCs acting out of character as a motivation to gain x.p. to be far worse when killing monsters is the motive. Gold is worthwhile even if there were no x.p. So PCs chasing gold is realistic even without the x.p. motive. Killing that last fleeing goblin just because you don't want to lose the x.p. is not good I don't think.

But do you like the "skip the defensive guards, go to the village while they sleep, kill the non-fighters, and loot the now lifeless village" that it spawned in many players back in the day? As one friend of mine says, "no popuylation, no popular unrest." the dead villager poses no threat when looting.

 

[aramis erak]

In what edition do you get XP for GP acquired without risk? Not 1e or 2e, 1e has a detailed system for reducing XP for low risk acquisition. And of course Level 0s don't earn XP.

I've never met a butcher who didn't have at least some scars.

 

[Emerikol]

But do you like the "skip the defensive guards, go to the village while they sleep, kill the non-fighters, and loot the now lifeless village" that it spawned in many players back in the day? As one friend of mine says, "no popuylation, no popular unrest." the dead villager poses no threat when looting.

I would consider that group an evil one. I tend to prefer playing with heroic characters.

I also think since I run a world full of NPCs with realistic motives etc... that the wholesale slaughter of innocents will bring more heat than it prevented.

 

[innerdude]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the concept of a "living world" by itself is a net neutral correlation to "immersion."

All of the "offscreen" gyrations/permutations/extrapolations of what NPC/faction does what, where, and why, is not really important for my ability as a player to be "immersed" moment to moment.

During the times when I was most "immersed", these were the common components:

• I had a strongly-realized character. The character was easy to visualize within the fictional space, with strong, well-defined motivations.
• The immediate scene being played out directly connected to the character's motivations.
• As a player, I was open and willing to let the scene play out organically. I wasn't going to just "do this thing because that's what my character would do," I was actually trying to interpret the in-fiction results of the game loop into the frame of the scene. If something changed in the fiction that would have mattered to my character, I wanted that change to be accurately reflected. To be clear, this was only partially carried out in "actor" stance. There was significant bouncing between actor and author stances, interpreting the character within and the scene without.

As a player, nothing about the GM's conception of the "offscreen" world made any difference in the moment.

Conversely, some of the most anti-immersive things I've experienced were related to my inability to pursue my character's dramatic need. I'm specifically thinking of the Savage Worlds Shaintar game my friend ran three years ago. There were many, many moments where'd I'd try to get "in character," start to picture how my character would react in situations, how she would view/approach certain NPCs, etc., but would constantly get blocked when I realized that this character was being denied what she would have wanted.

The only way a "living world" construct makes any difference to me as a player being "immersed" is if it gives the GM the ability to create scenes with 1) stakes appropriate to my character, and 2) is willing to actually "play to find out what happens."

For example, @Bedrockgames has cited multiple times a quote from a module that talks about how "the goblins don't just stand still," or whatever; i.e., the dungeon/town/city/country evolves as time goes on. But the GM's background workings/methods/processes in regards to making those extrapolations ultimately have zero effect on how and when the next scene of play has the ability to "immerse" me as a player.

I think what I'm getting at is that "living world" sandbox play has a number of merits in and of itself, but there's nothing about the GM functions/machinations involved in generating a "living world" that would have any real impact on my "immersion."

 

[prabe]

During the times when I was most "immersed", these were the common components:

• I had a strongly-realized character. The character was easy to visualize within the fictional space, with strong, well-defined motivations.
• The immediate scene being played out directly connected to the character's motivations.
• As a player, I was open and willing to let the scene play out organically. I wasn't going to just "do this thing because that's what my character would do," I was actually trying to interpret the in-fiction results of the game loop into the frame of the scene. If something changed in the fiction that would have mattered to my character, I wanted that change to be accurately reflected. To be clear, this was only partially carried out in "actor" stance. There was significant bouncing between actor and author stances, interpreting the character within and the scene without.

As a player, nothing about the GM's conception of the "offscreen" world made any difference in the moment.

This is a good post, but I specifically wanted to call out a couple of things in this.

First, I see an interpretation that immersion isn't entirely dependent on the GM's approach to the world, but that it's likely to be highly dependent on player-GM compatibility (and there might be synergies between specific GM approaches and specific playstyles).

Second, I find that my most-immersive play is very much into the story (not a specific character) and very much in a co-authorial mindset. That I find that authoring fiction requires more suspension of disbelief than reading it seems somehow relevant, here.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

One element of my personal style I've had players continually praise is the sense that there's a reason for everything, they feel like if they were to follow up on just about anything, there would be something there to learn about or understand why it works the way that it does.

I understand that piece of praise as my games having a sense of a living world, although I handle it differently than some would suggest that entails, specifically I make judgement calls about what needs to change over time, and what situations can be relatively static (read: where their status quo doesn't actually change in a meaningful way in universe, like, two countries won't just be at war forever, but its believable that they might be at a status quo stalemate for long time before a decisive battle would actually happen.)

What all those techniques being discussed here, and in the 'GM Notes' thread boil down to, is practices that enhance a sense of cause and effect at work in the world. Where 'Living World' techniques intersect with Immersion, is when the players uncover, or happen to hear about things happening in the world outside of the actions of the party and thereby imply movers and shakers beyond themselves.

 

[Campbell]

For me personally the number one factor in my ability to experience bleed in a safe and fun way is the orientation of the other players (including the GM if I'm playing a PC) to the character I am currently playing. Are they curious about my character? Are they fans? Do they want to see what happens to them next? The reason that's important is I need to feel socially free to really play that character with integrity. If I feel that interest is not there I do not want to be a drain on other people's experiences. Nothing is less fun than if other people's eyes glaze over when it's your turn to talk or you pursue your character's personal agenda.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

For me personally the number one factor in my ability to experience bleed in a safe and fun way is the orientation of the other players (including the GM if I'm playing a PC) to the character I am currently playing. Are they curious about my character? Are they fans? Do they want to see what happens to them next? The reason that's important is I need to feel socially free to really play that character with integrity. If I feel that interest is not there I do not want to be a drain on other people's experiences. Nothing is less fun than if other people's eyes glaze over when it's your turn to talk or you pursue your character's personal agenda.

Honestly, I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is the real magic of Critical Role, say what you want about them being professionals, what really makes that show is that every player is a fan of the other's characters. Everyone is stoked whenever something is happening to any one of them, everyone is excited to interact with the other personalities at the table, to buy into jokes or emotional scenes. Everyone is actively interested in squeezing the other characters for their secrets. I've GMed groups somewhat like this in the past (my university days) and its a real pleasure when everyone is invested in each other.

Whereas at my table, there are people who kind of shortsightedly have the viewpoint that they really don't care beyond their own character, it gives things this 'ok great, but I'm bored' vibe, its only just starting to change and I think it might be because I'm currently in a player slot while one of my regular player GMs, and I interact with everyone else using a character that has a strong personality.

That character is in an interesting position though, because they're kind of a massive jerk (albeit one with a good heart) the other players are fans of it provided it doesn't go too far (I've been asking to make sure everyone is comfortable on an ongoing basis, and playing in a way intentionally non-disruptive to party decision making), but the GM can't stand them, so I've been having to twist their personality in a way I'm honestly realizing I'm not enjoying as much, to keep them happy.

Which... I think I'm sympathizing with what you mean by "I need to feel socially free to really play that character with integrity" I might be feeling the loss of that integrity.

I'd be curious to play with you sometime, we seemingly have a lot of the same tastes and viewpoints.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I currently don't have time to add much other than to say the recent posts in this thread have been really interesting and insightful. Good stuff.

 

[aramis erak]

I would consider that group an evil one. I tend to prefer playing with heroic characters.

I also think since I run a world full of NPCs with realistic motives etc... that the wholesale slaughter of innocents will bring more heat than it prevented.

Except that the standard D&D world is more racist than Delhi, Jo'berg, Sydney, or Atlanta in the mid 19th C. The thinking and feeling beings that are listed as monsters are non-people in the games, and, at least in AD&D, are inherently evil, irredeemably so it would appear, so killing them is merely preventing their spreading their evil ways...

... in the context of D&D as presented, Orcs not even good as slaves. Hence, slaughter is the order of the day, Given that the treasure in lair is where the bulk is, bypass the warriors, kill the orc village while the warriors are out, and get out with the treasure. If possible, tuckerize them before they tuckerize you. wait for one to be alone, and remote slay. If high enough level, cloudkill and a couple fireballs can end most villages. Maximum XP for minimum risk.