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

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Sorry, I didn't mean that you literally think you are going to die, but that you feel this knot in your stomach, that you have an emotional, not just analytical, reaction.

I just thought of a story I haven't thought of in...decades: in graduate school I was playing on one of the very early text-based MUDs or MOOs (I can't remember what the difference is now..I think the M in MOO actually stands for MUD, so it's a nested acronym or something) that was modeled on the campus I was on. In the game my character was in the room I was actually sitting in, called the Lego Lab. A line of text appeared, "So-and-so walks into the Lego Lab" and in real life I looked up at the door.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It's the whole point, in my mind, and we caught onto that immediately back when I started in the late '70s.

By then it was recognized as Role Playing Game. It's also probably the concept that informed my continued approach to DMing, "tell me what you want to do, and I'll let you know what happens," where the rules exist primarily for the DM to help adjudicate the action, and their "mastery" by a player is of secondary importance.

It's also probably why there have always been a few people at my tables that will never learn the rules, they really have no interest in mechanics. It shouldn't be a surprise that I don't really care for the mechanically-focused definition of "character" or PC that has really become the focus of the rules, the so-called "character build."

We, and particularly most of my players, want to interact with the rules as little as possible. Everything is role playing, including the decisions and actions a given PC makes/takes during combat. There is no line between role playing, exploration, or combat in our game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's interesting. I can see it. If that singular die roll is part of the flow of the narrative it becomes almost invisible even as it informs the events in play.
Now that I am thinking about it, I feel like I have been counteracting immersion for a while, since I picked up a tendency to ask for "approaches and goals" from the players instead of just asking, "What do you DO?" Huh.

Well, I have to point out not everyone is playing for immersion. Its a preference issue, and there's others (though I've enjoyed it in other contexts, I don't overly do so myself in FTF gaming).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Often it is. Design At Start and Develop In Play are different approaches for a reason.

 

[Hriston]

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?

I'm not against establishing or defining things about a player character ahead of time. I play with a character in mind with which I'm interested in identifying in some way and make decisions about the character's goals, relationships, beliefs, etc. and seek to embody and test the character's adherence to those things through playing that character. The experience I have at the table finding out what happens with all that stuff mirrors the character's personal journey, which, for me, can be an immersive experience.

I just don't think "acting within the rolled characteristics of characters -- like not making smart decisions for a stupid character and vice versa" is a good way for me to experience immersion, and to be clear I'm interpreting this passage to be talking about not making smart decisions for a character with a low Intelligence score, not making socially adept decisions for a character with a low Charisma score, or perhaps not making decisions that rely on understanding things for a character with a low Wisdom score. This is because roleplaying in an RPG is about you, the player, making your character's decisions. Immersion, for me, involves feeling like my decisions are being made under the same set of imaginary circumstances in which the character finds itself and that my thought processes are mirroring those of the character. Living up to his or her beliefs, etc. is important to my character, so it makes sense that it would be important to me as well, but my low Intelligence character isn't trying to embody lack of intelligence. To the contrary, they're probably trying to use what wits they have to the best advantage.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It still seems like that's not really engaging with what the character is about; they may well be trying to use their wits to the utmost, but like a weak character trying to use their strength to the utmost, that doesn't mean it should be necessarily getting them anywhere, and if you're using your own capabilities to the utmost, that seems to be what's happening, its just the game system restrains you from doing one but not the other.

 

[Hussar]

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".

The problem with this example is that it is a single event. That one event likely won't make a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things. However, as I'll talk about with @Hriston later, it's all about consistency. Player A is actually playing a consistent character. Player B, without establishing any reason to know that information, is introducing an inconsistency (He knows about trolls when the character has no way of knowing this) into the game, solely to take advantage of the knowledge that the player has.

Now, the troll example has a bajillion workarounds, but, there are legitimate times when the player knows things that the character can't reasonably be expected to know. By using this meta-game knowledge, for the advantage of the character in play, is inconsistent and will drag me right out of being in character.

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.

Because you established these things about your character previously - whether through character generation or through play, and are now being inconsistent to that character.

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?

Of course it applies to everyone at the table. If you're trying to play a horror game and Bob sitting beside you is cracking jokes and completely ignoring the mood and tone of the game, are you saying this won't drag you out of your character?

Me, I set the bar pretty darn low, but, sure, there is a bare minimum of consistency and engagement that I expect from everyone at the table. When that doesn't happen, it pulls me right out of the game and spoils the game for me. When you realize that the player next to you could be replaced with a dice bot and nothing would change at the table, it makes the game very much unfun for me. I make my character with at least a bit of an eye towards making sure I'm going to be entertaining everyone at the table and I expect the same level of basic engagement from everyone else.

It's why I will not make Man With No Name characters who are connectionless drifters and murder hoboes. It totally ruins the game for me. It ruins the game for me as a player and a DM. If someone wants to play mini-combat, that's groovy. I've got a whole Warhammer collection ready to go. Let's do that. But don't waste my time at a ROLE playing game not bothering to actually play the role you brought to the table.

 

[turnip_farmer]

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

Hinders probably. They are at that moment very much outside the game world in their heads, thinking instead 'why are my fellow players all so stupid?'

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with this example is that it is a single event. That one event likely won't make a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things. However, as I'll talk about with @Hriston later, it's all about consistency. Player A is actually playing a consistent character. Player B, without establishing any reason to know that information, is introducing an inconsistency (He knows about trolls when the character has no way of knowing this) into the game, solely to take advantage of the knowledge that the player has.

Now, the troll example has a bajillion workarounds, but, there are legitimate times when the player knows things that the character can't reasonably be expected to know. By using this meta-game knowledge, for the advantage of the character in play, is inconsistent and will drag me right out of being in character.

Because you established these things about your character previously - whether through character generation or through play, and are now being inconsistent to that character.

Of course it applies to everyone at the table. If you're trying to play a horror game and Bob sitting beside you is cracking jokes and completely ignoring the mood and tone of the game, are you saying this won't drag you out of your character?

Me, I set the bar pretty darn low, but, sure, there is a bare minimum of consistency and engagement that I expect from everyone at the table. When that doesn't happen, it pulls me right out of the game and spoils the game for me. When you realize that the player next to you could be replaced with a dice bot and nothing would change at the table, it makes the game very much unfun for me. I make my character with at least a bit of an eye towards making sure I'm going to be entertaining everyone at the table and I expect the same level of basic engagement from everyone else.

You had me agreeing, completely and in full, up to here...

It's why I will not make Man With No Name characters who are connectionless drifters and murder hoboes. It totally ruins the game for me. It ruins the game for me as a player and a DM.

... but then you had to say this.

Dunno 'bout you, but I think I can give a connectionless murder-hobo more than enough character and personality to keep anyone happy, amd if I take it a bit over the top it'll probably be the most entertaining character at the table.

It'll have a name, to be sure, but there's no saying that name won't be some halfway-concealed pun or other which may or may not ever be revealed.

For example, I have a retired character named Elena. Perfectly valid name, hm? Yet it's also a pun, in that it's an acronym for what she is: Elvish Lawful* Evil Necromancer Assassin. When she joined the party she was pretty connectionless, in that she'd burned every bridge from her past life she could find (intentionally or otherwise, Wisdom not being her strong suit).

Immensely entertaining during her career, which has now mostly ended due to too many death-revive cycles (in 1e you lose a Con point each time; and when your Con gets down to 5 it really is time to hang up the daggers... ).

* - once she got going I really should have changed her name to Ecena as she turned out way more chaotic in play than I had in mind when I rolled her up, but what the hell...

If someone wants to play mini-combat, that's groovy. I've got a whole Warhammer collection ready to go. Let's do that. But don't waste my time at a ROLE playing game not bothering to actually play the role you brought to the table.

Again I agree. My only beef is that a connectionless murder-hobo can be a perfectly valid role to bring to said table.

 

[Hussar]

@Lanefan - oh, fair enough. I was using the example of Man with no Name as a shorthand for players who put zero effort into portraying a character at the table, and could be replaced by a random dice generator without anyone noticing.