D&D General The History of 'Immersion' in RPGs

D&D historian Jon Peterson has taken a look at the concept of 'immersion' as it related to tabletop roleplaying games, with references to the concept going back to The Wild Hunt (1977), D&D modules like In Search of the Unknown, games like Boot Hill, and Forgotten Realms creator Ed Greenwood speaking in Dragon Magazine.

Immersion and Role Playing in the 1970s

The idea that role playing involved a property called "immersion" occurred to the early adopters of the 1970s fairly early. The earliest e...

playingattheworld.blogspot.com

 

[Maxperson]

We're not disagreeing on the definition of role playing. And no, I'm not changing the definition either.

What can you do when playing a role? Make decisions and take actions. That's it. How do you determine what decisions/actions you take? By playing the role. If you are role-playing in a training exercise, one person might take on the role of a salesperson, and the other a customer. You may not be defining anything more than that, but those are the roles you take.

But roles can differ. You can take an elven fighter and make decisions based on your elvenhood, what you think fighters would act like, and your stats. That's the role you assign yourself. I can take the same elven fighter and think, fighters hit stuff with weapons. And that's the role I assign myself. Both of us are playing a role. We've just assigned ourselves different roles to play. You don't get to tell me what role I choose to play, and I don't get to tell you what role you get to play. Both of us would be roleplaying, as we are are both playing roles.

Note that I didn't say you aren't role-playing, just that you switched roles.

Then it seems that we agree that there are many ways to roleplay.

If you make a decision based on something that is happening at the table, between players, rather than between characters, then you are no longer making a decision as Alarac, the halfling cleric of Tymora in the Forgotten Realms, because Alarac doesn't even know those players, that table, or even that planet exists.

I don't have to inhabit him to the degree you do, though. I can just inhabit him just enough to smash stuff with weapons like fighters do.

 

[Lanefan]

Also, I wonder where you are getting the idea that a player is "free to ignore his or her character sheet"?

Easy. It's from your saying things like this...

Players are free to interpret stats however they like in 5e.

... because ignoring the stats is very much under the umbrella of players interpreting those stats however they like.

That said, it is not a smart play to pretend your character is super smart when the game situation begs for a DM to call for an Intelligence check with meaningful consequences. Does that make sense? However, I'm not going to sit behind the screen and mandate that the INT 6 Barbarian play as the drooling idiot in our 5e game. I get the feeling that this type of roleplay is a conceit from an earlier edition but I'm certain that 5e has no such requirement.

I rather suspect you're putting far too much faith in the players to self-police.

Bad faith play is a thing that cannot be ignored, and which rules exist to curtail; and if 5e truly doesn't have any statements that boil down to "your stats to some extent must inform your roleplaying" then that's a very exploitable (and rather egregious) error.

If I'm using standard array I can stick the 8 into Int or Wis (whichever one I don't need for my character's class) every time and in theory it'll never matter under your standards, as by your own words I'm free to interpret that 8 however I like; and how I choose to interpret it is that I'm the smartest or wisest person in the room every time and that's what I'm going to role-play. Yes this isn't good-faith play but the only thing that can stop me is the DM, 'cause it seems the rules can't.

The physical stats (Str, Dex, Con) almost always have rules attached that state what those stats enable me to do or not do both mechanically and role-play-wise. The other stats (Int, Wis, Cha) largely don't: I can't role-play my Str 8 character as being an expert arm-wrestler because the rules will quickly stop me, but I can role-play my Int 8 character as a genius because the rules don't tell me I can't.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Easy. It's from your saying things like this...

... because ignoring the stats is very much under the umbrella of players interpreting those stats however they like.

To say that one is "ignoring their character sheet" is not the same as one "interpreting ability scores" how they wish. In 5e, which I believe you don't play that much, there is a whole array of personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws on the character sheet that players use to inform their roleplay - and are rewarded for it under the inspiration rules (not here to argue whether or not each table implements those rules or not). Also, IME, players do use their scores to inform their roleplaying, but that is not mandated by the rules of 5e. "Ignoring" the character sheet just doesn't happen at the games I run and play in.

I rather suspect you're putting far too much faith in the players to self-police.

I guess I've generally been lucky in having players at our table who roleplay their characters in ways that are fun and cooperative - which includes leaning into their weaknesses, whether those are low scores or great flaws or both. All I'm saying is that the 5e rules do not prescribe that the players roleplay to a restricted definition of what a 6 or an 8 or a 20 ability score represents. And, most importantly, the 5e rules do not demand that the DM tell the players how to roleplay their characters.

Bad faith play is a thing that cannot be ignored, and which rules exist to curtail; and if 5e truly doesn't have any statements that boil down to "your stats to some extent must inform your roleplaying" then that's a very exploitable (and rather egregious) error.

I suppose. In session zero we make it clear that we're here to play a cooperative game, have fun, and create an exciting memorable story - as suggested in the 5e books. Someone playing "super-duper-rule-exploit man" tends not to be attracted to our games perhaps because no one else is playing that way. Again, not here to discuss jerk players (or DMs). They can ruin any style of play.

If I'm using standard array I can stick the 8 into Int or Wis (whichever one I don't need for my character's class) every time and in theory it'll never matter under your standards, as by your own words I'm free to interpret that 8 however I like; and how I choose to interpret it is that I'm the smartest or wisest person in the room every time and that's what I'm going to role-play. Yes this isn't good-faith play but the only thing that can stop me is the DM, 'cause it seems the rules can't.

Others have pointed this out in the thread: an 8 is exactly 5% worse than the "average" score of 10. Please explain how you would differentiate roleplaying an 8 vs a 10 so it is always clear at the table. And, why the DM needs to waste their energy on worrying if someone is going over the line (and maybe that line is somewhere else... someone roleplaying an 8 as a 12? an 8 as a 14?) Point being: 5e rules don't care therefore I as a DM have learned not to waste my energy on policing the roleplaying of stats - and our games end up with fine roleplaying all the same. Maybe it has something to do with the players embracing the inspiration mechanic instead of trying for (what they believe are) greedy exploits of the rules. Or simple adherence to the goals of the game.

The physical stats (Str, Dex, Con) almost always have rules attached that state what those stats enable me to do or not do both mechanically and role-play-wise. The other stats (Int, Wis, Cha) largely don't: I can't role-play my Str 8 character as being an expert arm-wrestler because the rules will quickly stop me, but I can role-play my Int 8 character as a genius because the rules don't tell me I can't.

Players can have their PC put on any airs they want in 5e. The STR 8 PC can claim they are an expert arm-wrestler but they are most likely going to get thrashed in the arm-wrestling contest when made to roll an "unproficient" (how is that not a word? That should be a word!) STR check. The WIS 8 PC can claim they are an expert doctor, but when other PCs or the sick magistrate die as a result of failed WIS(Medicine) checks, the farce is exposed. In our games, there is a tangible difference between what the PCs think they know and what is actually true in the game world. Just because someone roleplays a certain way, doesn't mean their ability scores suddenly are something else. It's simply poor game strategy for the party to let the weak-statted PC be the one to take on an important task. I mean, that could be fun, but there could be game world consequences for failure.

While the player determines, in 5e, what their PC does (or tries to do), thinks, and says, DM adjudication will expose the truth of how the world works and the players adapt their PC strategies accordingly. If that adjudication includes the dice, the stats will bring the PCs' strengths and weaknesses to bear. It appears you may be conflating the INT, WIS, CHA stats with roleplaying. They might be rigidly tied together in editions or other games that you most often play but that is just not the case in 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

Bad faith play is a thing that cannot be ignored, and which rules exist to curtail; and if 5e truly doesn't have any statements that boil down to "your stats to some extent must inform your roleplaying" then that's a very exploitable (and rather egregious) error.

There's no statements that boil down to "your stats to some extent must inform your roleplaying," but the Using Each Ability section that begins on page 175 of the PHB comes close. For example, "Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason." so a low intelligence score is a low measure of mental acuity, low accuracy of recall, and low ability to reason. The same would go for all of the stats, but there is no requirement to follow that.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

But roles can differ. You can take an elven fighter and make decisions based on your elvenhood, what you think fighters would act like, and your stats. That's the role you assign yourself. I can take the same elven fighter and think, fighters hit stuff with weapons. And that's the role I assign myself. Both of us are playing a role. We've just assigned ourselves different roles to play. You don't get to tell me what role I choose to play, and I don't get to tell you what role you get to play. Both of us would be roleplaying, as we are are both playing roles.

Then it seems that we agree that there are many ways to roleplay.

I don't have to inhabit him to the degree you do, though. I can just inhabit him just enough to smash stuff with weapons like fighters do.

Just to be clear, I'm not telling you what role you choose to play, nor that there is a single way to roleplay, nor which style of roleplay you (or anyone else) should play.

Since there are so many ways to roleplay, when discussing how we roleplay, it's important to be on the same page about what type of roleplaying we're discussing. I thought the context clear, due to the OP, but I'll clarify.

In my case it is total immersion, and roleplaying a specific character - not just their class (which is non-specific), or race (which is also non-specific), or special abilities, or anything else that is mechanically defined in the game, but the character in totality, race, class, background, experiences, personality, everything that makes them as unique an individual as we are in our world. That is, as if they are a real person in a real world, entirely separate and independent from our world.

I will also reiterate that this is different than acting. You don't have to speak in character, have an accent, or dress the part. You can certainly do that if you want. I suck at it. After 40+ years of trying to improve my acting abilities, it's just not something in my skill set. In particular I am very bad at coming up with dialog on the fly. I've had a few memorable moments over the years, but for the most part it's just not something I can do.

Anyway, in my examples, I am talking about roleplaying the character completely. Not just that my role is "fighter so I hit things," nor the game-focused mechanical roles that were formalized in 4e like striker, tank, healer, etc., for me It's about who the character is, not what.

--

I also view it from the perspective that a really well defined character can "take on a life of their own." That's the sort of immersion I'm looking for, and it's something that writers and actors also talk about. It's also something noticeable. For example, a new TV show has characters, and they are relatively well defined. But the first season they are often still finding their feet. The writers are often still clarifying and understanding the characters, and the actors are learning to inhabit them better. In later seasons the difference is often noticeable, not just that the character is more fleshed out, but that the character is better defined and that you see the character more than the actor.

As an example of character as I see it, consider the first fight between Will Turner and Jack Sparrow. You can say they are both human, and both fighters, or maybe one a fighter, one a rogue. The class isn't important, my focus here is that they are both good sword fighters, and both confident in their ability to win this fight.

Sure, at the table you can just make decisions as a fighter, and the scene will unfold in a particular way, and probably much like any other D&D fight. But when you layer on the character aspects, that Jack just wants to leave, for example, then decisions made within the fight change. Add in that Jack is somewhat of a pacifist and doesn't want to hurt Will in the process further alters the decisions he makes. His confidence in his ability to control the situation without violence leads him to casually turn his back on his armed opponent to simply walk out after moving Will opposite the door. It's not Jack's or Will's human-ness, nor fighting ability that defines the scene. It's all about their character, and in the process it also further defines their characters for the audience.

With that immersion of character, of who each character is, then the scene unfolds very differently than a standard D&D fight. And it does so specifically because of the characters themselves.

--

Another thing that fans pick up on when a character acts "out of character." Where the writers/actors have lost the essence of the character. Something doesn't fit or feel right, even under the circumstances. This is more about consistency in service to the character as they are defined. So yes, you can make decisions based on different parts of the character, their elven nature, their being a fighter, etc. But people don't make decisions based on those things in a vacuum. An elven fighter is also still a person that has years of experiences that helps define who they are as an elven fighter. Which also helps explain why, even though you may have 100 elven fighters, each one will make their own specific choices and do things their way. It's just the way my brain works, those things can't really be separated when talking about a character, because to me what makes a character a person is the decisions they make and actions they take, and why they do.

This feeling is also possible in RPGs, when the goal is to inhabit the characters in the same way. To let the characters take the lead, and the story to "write itself." As a DM, my goal is to set up the game to allow this to happen. To get myself and the rules out of the way, so the players can have a place where they too can get out of the way and experience the "total immersion that can be obtained by reading a good book or viewing a good film." The main difference is that the players are participants and audience.

--

So that's the context for my statement. If you are inhabiting a character in the game with immersion as the goal, then making a decision for that character based on what is going on outside of that world (such as doing something different specifically to make it "cool" for a new player), then you are no longer inhabiting that character at that point in time. You have stepped out of character momentarily.

It doesn't mean that if you aren't doing this you're doing it wrong. Nor that it's the only way (or goal) in playing an RPG.

No judgement, just an observation within the context of the type of roleplaying (or goal of roleplaying) as defined in the OP. If you don't share the same goals, YMMV.

--

An interesting side note. I know Pieter Roos. Not through RPGs, he was more involved in wargames than RPGs and only had the original D&D set and played for a short while. I saw him the other day and mentioned the quote. He didn't actually remember writing it, but did write for the Wild Hunt in that period and said it certainly sounded like him. He was 19 when he wrote that quote. But it's also a good example of what I'm talking about with character. Even though he didn't remember writing it, he could recognize the character in the writing, that is, the young Pieter Roos.

 

[Lanefan]

To say that one is "ignoring their character sheet" is not the same as one "interpreting ability scores" how they wish. In 5e, which I believe you don't play that much, there is a whole array of personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws on the character sheet that players use to inform their roleplay - and are rewarded for it under the inspiration rules (not here to argue whether or not each table implements those rules or not). Also, IME, players do use their scores to inform their roleplaying, but that is not mandated by the rules of 5e. "Ignoring" the character sheet just doesn't happen at the games I run and play in.

Because you and your players self-police. I don't assume self-policing to be a default state.

That said, two things leap out here.

First, I would flat-out never play in or run a game using meta-mechanics like Inspiration or Fate Points. Talk about immersion-breaking! (yes there's meta-mechanics in 1e as written, e.g. good roleplay reduces your training time/costs, but I threw those out before I started DMing and haven't regretted doing so for a second)

Second, is there a rule anywhere in 5e that says a character must be played to its bonds, flaws, etc.? If yes, great. If not, they're merely guidelines and are thus every bit as ignorable as the stat numbers, should one choose to do so.

I suppose. In session zero we make it clear that we're here to play a cooperative game, have fun, and create an exciting memorable story - as suggested in the 5e books. Someone playing "super-duper-rule-exploit man" tends not to be attracted to our games perhaps because no one else is playing that way. Again, not here to discuss jerk players (or DMs). They can ruin any style of play.

Super-duper exploit man isn't necessarily being a jerk, though. He's simply doing what the game at its root asks him to do, which is to advocate for his character.

Others have pointed this out in the thread: an 8 is exactly 5% worse than the "average" score of 10.

Between 8 and 10, or even 12, there's little difference; those numbers are the big mushy middle of the bell curve. But the differences grow as you get more extreme: mechanics be damned, IMO there's a much bigger difference between 6 and 8 than there is between 8 and 10; and an even bigger difference between 4 and 6.

Which goes the other way too; and while playing an Int 8 character as if it's 10 makes little difference, playing it as if it's Int 17 sure does.

Players can have their PC put on any airs they want in 5e. The STR 8 PC can claim they are an expert arm-wrestler but they are most likely going to get thrashed in the arm-wrestling contest when made to roll an "unproficient" (how is that not a word? That should be a word!) STR check. The WIS 8 PC can claim they are an expert doctor, but when other PCs or the sick magistrate die as a result of failed WIS(Medicine) checks, the farce is exposed.

Both of those are examples of the rules, in effect, telling the player to stop.

But when there's no rules e.g. when the 8-Int PC is the one who roleplays solving every complex problem and sticky riddle, and always comes up with the smartest idea as to what to do next, the only thing that can tell that player to stop is the DM.

In our games, there is a tangible difference between what the PCs think they know and what is actually true in the game world. Just because someone roleplays a certain way, doesn't mean their ability scores suddenly are something else. It's simply poor game strategy for the party to let the weak-statted PC be the one to take on an important task. I mean, that could be fun, but there could be game world consequences for failure.

While the player determines, in 5e, what their PC does (or tries to do), thinks, and says, DM adjudication will expose the truth of how the world works and the players adapt their PC strategies accordingly. If that adjudication includes the dice, the stats will bring the PCs' strengths and weaknesses to bear. It appears you may be conflating the INT, WIS, CHA stats with roleplaying. They might be rigidly tied together in editions or other games that you most often play but that is just not the case in 5e.

Int-Wis-Cha stats are in theory things that inform roleplaying. Your stated position says you're fine as DM with players ignoring these guidelines but your play examples indicate your crew self-polices and follows the guidelines regardless*, which means you're not having to deal with players who don't or won't self-police because the game doesn't tell them they have to.

* - perhaps because you're using Inspiration, a blatant meta-mechanic, as a reward mechanism.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Because you and your players self-police. I don't assume self-policing to be a default state.

I keep reading "police state" here. Some subliminal judgement of your game? I hope not! LOL

That said, two things leap out here.

First, I would flat-out never play in or run a game using meta-mechanics like Inspiration or Fate Points. Talk about immersion-breaking! (yes there's meta-mechanics in 1e as written, e.g. good roleplay reduces your training time/costs, but I threw those out before I started DMing and haven't regretted doing so for a second)

Hence your aversion to 5e. Understood.

Second, is there a rule anywhere in 5e that says a character must be played to its bonds, flaws, etc.? If yes, great. If not, they're merely guidelines and are thus every bit as ignorable as the stat numbers, should one choose to do so.

Based on my responses so far, I think you know the answer is the latter: the player determines how they roleplay their PC. Although, I'm not sure why a player would choose bonds and flaws and then ignore them. They add to the fun. To each their own, I suppose.

Super-duper exploit man isn't necessarily being a jerk, though. He's simply doing what the game at its root asks him to do, which is to advocate for his character.

Advocating for your character and trying to play the all-knowing super-hero are two different things. I will grant you that applying bad faith to the former could lead to the latter - but the game at its root does not "ask" the player to leap there.

Between 8 and 10, or even 12, there's little difference; those numbers are the big mushy middle of the bell curve. But the differences grow as you get more extreme: mechanics be damned, IMO there's a much bigger difference between 6 and 8 than there is between 8 and 10; and an even bigger difference between 4 and 6.

In 5e the difference between 6 and 8 is exactly the same as 4 and 6 for all abilities. +1 difference in the modifier. I suspect that is not so in the editions you play so perhaps that's part of the disconnect here.

Which goes the other way too; and while playing an Int 8 character as if it's 10 makes little difference, playing it as if it's Int 17 sure does.

Might matter in the edition you are playing. Does not matter in 5e. Roleplaying does not grant the magic ability to make a -1 modifier into a +3.

Both of those are examples of the rules, in effect, telling the player to stop.

But when there's no rules e.g. when the 8-Int PC is the one who roleplays solving every complex problem and sticky riddle, and always comes up with the smartest idea as to what to do next, the only thing that can tell that player to stop is the DM.

To me, in the context of 5e, that's a DM issue with creation of challenges and adjudication of said challenges. If the DM, in a 5e game, needs to say "your character wouldn't do/think/say that", something has gone wrong behind the screen, IMO (and IME). Also, that player is hogging the spotlight and we're back to the jerk fallacy.

Int-Wis-Cha stats are in theory things that inform roleplaying.

Agreed.

Your stated position says you're fine as DM with players ignoring these guidelines but your play examples indicate your crew self-polices and follows the guidelines regardless*, which means you're not having to deal with players who don't or won't self-police because the game doesn't tell them they have to.

* - perhaps because you're using Inspiration, a blatant meta-mechanic, as a reward mechanism.

That's the thing: in 5e there are no hard rules about how the player must play their character. There are hints at how one might portray high or low ability scores, but nothing is mandated.

As for the asterisk, the Inspiration mechanic is just part of the 5e game. I, for one, don't care if it is a blatant meta-mechanic that offends the anti-metagaming mindset (you may have seen my metagaming philosophy upthread). Inspiration promotes interesting roleplaying and is used to gain advantage when attempting challenging actions in the game world. But I understand that's not your bag which, of course, is fine as I'm sure you are also having fun with your games that lack said mechanic.

 

[Maxperson]

Super-duper exploit man isn't necessarily being a jerk, though. He's simply doing what the game at its root asks him to do, which is to advocate for his character.

No, the game doesn't expect exploits to be used. Exploiting the game goes well beyond simply advocating for your character and soundly into territory that is tantamount to cheating. If a player is trying to exploit things, in my opinion the player is being a jerk.

 

[Lanefan]

Based on my responses so far, I think you know the answer is the latter: the player determines how they roleplay their PC. Although, I'm not sure why a player would choose bonds and flaws

Because the game says they have to.

and then ignore them.

Because the game doesn't say they can't.

Advocating for your character and trying to play the all-knowing super-hero are two different things. I will grant you that applying bad faith to the former could lead to the latter - but the game at its root does not "ask" the player to leap there.


In 5e the difference between 6 and 8 is exactly the same as 4 and 6 for all abilities. +1 difference in the modifier. I suspect that is not so in the editions you play so perhaps that's part of the disconnect here.

Truth be told, the mechanical difference is less in my game: there's usually no modifier between about 8 and 14 for any stat. (that said, we use roll-under a lot; every stat point still counts)

But that's the mechanical difference.

Not the roleplay this-is-how-the-character-interacts-with-the-world difference. Think about it without any reference to mechanics, in terms of pure freeform roleplay, and ask who or what enforces playing to stats when the game itself does not. That's what I'm talking about here - all those instances where mechanics are not involved, and really shouldn't be.

Might matter in the edition you are playing. Does not matter in 5e. Roleplaying does not grant the magic ability to make a -1 modifier into a +3.

Once again, step away from the mechanics and into roleplay.

To me, in the context of 5e, that's a DM issue with creation of challenges and adjudication of said challenges. If the DM, in a 5e game, needs to say "your character wouldn't do/think/say that", something has gone wrong behind the screen, IMO (and IME).

I suspect your style of DMing relies far more on mechanical resolution than does mine. For example, I rather dislike so-called social-encounter mechanics and try to avoid them whenever possible...which means those encounters are resolved through roleplay at the table. Thus, there's no mechanics arising where that -1 or +3 can make a difference.

Also, that player is hogging the spotlight and we're back to the jerk fallacy.

Maybe. I'm one who - perhaps a bit controversially - sees the spotlight as something to be competed for, within reason, and therefore one is not necessarily being a jerk by simply trying to get it. Put another way, I'd far rather be in a game where everyone always wants the spotlight and I have to fight for it than a game where nobody wants it; and I've been in both.

If someone's not willing to compete for the spotlight and enjoys a more passive experience, that's fine too - unless the whole table's that way; in which case the DM has to put on her engineer's cap and fire up the locomotive...

 

[Lanefan]

No, the game doesn't expect exploits to be used. Exploiting the game goes well beyond simply advocating for your character and soundly into territory that is tantamount to cheating. If a player is trying to exploit things, in my opinion the player is being a jerk.

Exploiting is most assuredly not cheating, as the whole point of an exploit is that you're expressly NOT breaking any rules! And depending on the scope and intent of the exploit, it's not always even jerk-iness. One could argue that power-playing a Cleric in 3e was an exploit simply due to the way the class was designed, but surely not every 3e Cleric player was a jerk.

That said, it's of course squarely on the DM to shut down exploits as and when* they arise.

* - or preferably before; it's usually best if the DM is the most proficient rules-exploiter in the room so she can proactively find and deal with headaches before anyone else finds them.