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

 

[Bedrockgames]

The "G" in RPG stands for game. When I'm reading a book or watching a movie I'm always aware that I'm reading a book or watching a movie no matter how into I am. Likewise, no matter how into a game or what rules I'm using I will always realize I'm playing a game.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we should be like Tom Hanks in Mazes and Monsters. What I think people mean is RPGs provide a level of immersion that other mediums don't seem to provide to them. That is my experience at least. Doesn't mean I forget I am playing a game. But just like the joy of watching a movie is those moments you forget you are in a theater because you are so focused on what is playing out on screen, with RPGs that feeling feeling of being there, that level of focus, is powerful. People can take this idea to ridiculous extremes of course (for example refusing to address anything outside of their character). But I think as a term it does point to one of the draws of RPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

I've had players with characters dumber than turnips, especially when enforcing rolling for ability scores.

Me too. That said, for myself if I get stuck with a really low stat roll I'll more often plug it into Wisdom and leave something half-decent in Intelligence. That way, if I-as-player think of something my PC legitimately can as well, and - even better! - I/it can act on that thought immediately without having to think or worry about any consequences or aftereffects.

Gonzo for the win!

 

[Guest 6801328]

The "G" in RPG stands for game. When I'm reading a book or watching a movie I'm always aware that I'm reading a book or watching a movie no matter how into I am. Likewise, no matter how into a game or what rules I'm using I will always realize I'm playing a game.

I don't think you're grokking the meaning here.

Have you ever been so intent on a video game that when you fall off a cliff, you actually feel a little bit of vertigo?

Likewise, that moment when you realize your character is going to die, or that your NPC friend is actually your enemy, or that you just found Magic Sword of Awesomeness....aren't those moments somehow different, more real, than comparable moments in board games when you realize you are going to lose, or you get outfoxed by another player, or land on a really good space?

That's immersion.

 

[MGibster]

I don't think you're grokking the meaning here.

Have you ever been so intent on a video game that when you fall off a cliff, you actually feel a little bit of vertigo?

I get the meaning. This often comes up in discussions in reference to the rules fading into the background allowing full immersion. But, no, i don't feel a bit of vertigo when falling off a cliff in a video game though I've certainly been had by jump scares. When you're alone at 1:00 a.m. playing System Shock 2 in your apartment when suddenly someone cries out, "Run!" or "Kill me!" it wakes you right the hell up.

Likewise, that moment when you realize your character is going to die, or that your NPC friend is actually your enemy, or that you just found Magic Sword of Awesomeness....aren't those moments somehow different, more real, than comparable moments in board games when you realize you are going to lose, or you get outfoxed by another player, or land on a really good space?

Not to me, no.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Why is that ignoring your character, and not finding out something new and interesting about your character? Again, it seems to treat the character as something pre-established and static rather than something that's revealed through play.

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.

I think of immersion as a feeling you have about playing your own character, not about watching someone else play theirs. Would it be fair to say, though, that, for you, immersion is about gameplay conforming to the expectations you have for yourself and the other people at the table?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think of immersion as a feeling you have about playing your own character, not about watching someone else play theirs. Would it be fair to say, though, that, for you, immersion is about gameplay conforming to the expectations you have for yourself and the other people at the table?

I would agree with this. For me immersion is just a feeling I have, probably oriented mostly around my ability to say what it is I am trying to do and having the world react believably, and occasionally talking in character. I don't really concern myself with what is on other peoples' character sheets or whether they are playing a made up persona or essentially just playin themselves. I don't consider fidelity to a character concept a big part of this experience personally

 

[Bedrockgames]

The underlying cause of so many arguments is, I think, two entirely different definitions of immersion, of what it means to "inhabit" your character.

Type A means doing what you think your character would do.

Type B means you and your character are having the same experience.

To use the canonical example of trolls and fire:

Player A thinks, "My character wouldn't know that you need to use fire on trolls, so by pretending I don't know that, I'm inhabiting my character."

Player B thinks, "The first time this happened I was freaking out and thought we were going to die, and it was awesome. Now, however, I know all about trolls, so pretending I don't feels like a disconnect with my character."

And the corollary to B is: "Except that the player next to me is new, so for his sake I'll pretend to be freaking out."

Both approaches are totally valid. The problem is that the two philosophies lead to totally different answers in how to handle a wide range of scenarios.

EDIT: ...lead to two totally different definitions of "good roleplaying".

I don't think it ever reaches the point of thinking I am going to die. My brain knows I am not in real danger. It just feels particularly believable and for a moment, the outside world disappears.

 

[Hriston]

I see Role Playing Games regularly come into conflict with two major groups of Players, one is the rules lawyers more interested in the "games" of RPGs and the other, the story tellers more interested in the "role playing".

Fortunately, for the hobby, the majority of Players are in neither of the above camps and mix "games" and "role playing" equally. For example, counting hit points in numbers rather than narrative wounds, while still being immersed in role playing that epic Charisma role by convincing the dragon boss to make nice after taking the whole Player party down below half-HP..

I don't think I understand what this has to do with what I posted.

 

[billd91]

Why is that ignoring your character, and not finding out something new and interesting about your character? Again, it seems to treat the character as something pre-established and static rather than something that's revealed through play.

I think the point Hussar is getting at is - there may be aspects that emerge, but there are also aspects you define at the start. And if you completely ignore those, why did you define them that way at the beginning? Or why did you describe them that way without intending to incorporate that into your play?

 

[Hriston]

I'm always intrigued watching clever people try and play stupid characters. You can sometimes see the internal struggle when they figure something out but don't want to say it aloud because they think their character would not be able to.

Do you think that struggle enhances or hinders immersion for those players?