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

 

[R_Chance]

To the extent the mechanics reflect the way the world works, it seems the character/s would (should?) have a pretty good understanding. I don't particularly buy into the idea that the players' not knowing the rules makes for better immersion; I actually believe the players' internalizing the rules (at least for their characters) does.

Then it just comes to knowing the situation before you act--which ... might not always be entirely in character, but I think that's a different concern.

I agree. When players know the rules, it's not much different than understanding the world around you irl. Some players will have a better knowledge of the rules than others and some people irl have a better knowledge of how the world works irl. In some situations (in game or irl) some people calculate the odds, while others might just "go for it". Either is a "realistic" way to address the world, in game or real life. I'd say verisimilitude is preserved with either approach.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Hey! Look in the comments: Mike @mearls is alive and thinking about game stuff.

 

[Hussar]

Speaking for myself, as someone with a background in stage acting, there is almost nothing I find less immersive than the idea of "acting within the rolled characteristics of characters" that Jon Peterson attributes to Kevin Slimak and Mike Carr. My character is not worried about making decisions that are too smart for himself, so any process that involves that sort of thinking would prevent me from feeling like I'm inhabiting the role of my character.

Really? I'm the total opposite. Nothing yanks me out of the moment more than seeing a player, whether myself or someone else at the table, totally ignore their character when playing. Or, to put it another way, if you're really inhabiting your character's head, internalizing the character that is created, rather than simply choosing the most pragmatic choice, then it shouldn't really occur to you that there are better choices to be made.

 

[Hriston]

Really? I'm the total opposite. Nothing yanks me out of the moment more than seeing a player, whether myself or someone else at the table, totally ignore their character when playing. Or, to put it another way, if you're really inhabiting your character's head, internalizing the character that is created, rather than simply choosing the most pragmatic choice, then it shouldn't really occur to you that there are better choices to be made.

Yes, absolutely. I don't know what you mean by "ignore their character" but it seems to emphasize the idea that the character is a separate entity from the player's roleplaying of it, whereas my goal as a player is to identify with the character. I can't do that while self-consciously editing my roleplaying to conform with some idea of what the character "should" be like.

 

[Hussar]

Yes, absolutely. I don't know what you mean by "ignore their character" but it seems to emphasize the idea that the character is a separate entity from the player's roleplaying of it, whereas my goal as a player is to identify with the character. I can't do that while self-consciously editing my roleplaying to conform with some idea of what the character "should" be like.

By "ignore their character", I mean that your Int 6 Barbarian is erudite and intellectual. Your CN rogue is completely dependable and never does anything spontaneous. Your (I keep saying "your" here, I don't necessarily mean you, @Hriston) cleric character that never once mentions anything about faith or beliefs but is basically a spell casting fighter.

So on and so forth. Watching players completely ignore the character they made so that they can play whatever they feel like completely pulls me out of anything remotely like immersion.

 

[TheSword]

I love when you’re playing a game and realize that you’re four hours into a game that was supposed to last 2 1/2 and everyone was having so much fun they didn’t realize.

I don’t think it matters if you’re talking first person or third; playing to character or playing to type. As long as you’re caught up in the moment and enjoying the game experience I’m happy.

 

[Reynard]

I love when you’re playing a game and realize that you’re four hours into a game that was supposed to last 2 1/2 and everyone was having so much fun they didn’t realize.

I don’t think it matters if you’re talking first person or third; playing to character or playing to type. As long as you’re caught up in the moment and enjoying the game experience I’m happy.

This raises and interesting question: is there a difference, for purposes of this discussion, between "engagement" and "immersion"?

 

[TheSword]

This raises and interesting question: is there a difference, for purposes of this discussion, between "engagement" and "immersion"?

I’d say they’re synonymous.

 

[Reynard]

I’d say they’re synonymous.

I don't think I agree. You can be fully engaged in, say, a very fiddly tactical battle without being immersed in the world of the game.

 

[prabe]

I’d say they’re synonymous.

I dunno. I think it's possible to lose track of time outside the game without being completely (or particularly at all) immersed in one's character. Happens with board games, at least for me. IME, it's more about how much of my available bandwidth I devote to the game in question.