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

 

[jgsugden]

DMG. Pg 34.

As a DM, I take a delight in immersing Hack and Slash players. There are a lot of player that have sat down at my game table to take their frustrations out on some skeletons and dragons without a concern for the story at all. They just want to have a bit or murder hobo fun.

And I give it to them. The story focuses on the other PCs. They're able to just drink their beer, smile and roll the dice.

For a while. Then, I give them a hook. It is usually a lure to give them a chance to do some solo combat and shine, but there are clear ramifications of doing so that they see coming. For example, they may end up being challenged to a duel by a local nobleman's child. They can turn down the duel and avoid the conflict, intentionally lose it, or they can fight to win. Whether they let the nobleman's son live or die in the duel, there will be some ramifications. I make sure those involve their beloved combats - but it also begins to weave a story, and I make sure that they drive those decisions by having NPCs address them, rather than the party. Most of the time, they start to put themselves out there more and start to build the RP muscles.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

Yeah, this conversation has gone around a billion times. You say "the character has no way of knowing this" but there are, in fact, lots of ways a character might know this, other than having personally experienced trolls.

Like I said upthread, a lot (in this case, whether or not you let players decide what their characters know) depends on what you value in roleplaying, that is, whether you're Type A or Type B.

 

[jgsugden]

Yeah, this conversation has gone around a billion times. You say "the character has no way of knowing this" but there are, in fact, lots of ways a character might know this, other than having personally experienced trolls.

Like I said upthread, a lot (in this case, whether or not you let players decide what their characters know) depends on what you value in roleplaying, that is, whether you're Type A or Type B.

Under RAW, your intelligence ability score, and your proficiency with intelligence skills, measure your ability to recall. That is explicit. It is not a question of whether you use immersive role playing or not - it is spelled out in the rules.

Regardless of whether you've been exposed to trolls or not, through lore, experience, etc... it is your INTELLIGENCE and PROFICIENCIES that determine if your PC knows things about them when he wants to recall it. A player's knowledge, under RAW, has nothing to do with what the character knows. That is the core mechanics.

So, let's say your 6 Intelligence barbarian, who grew up amongst a clan that fought trolls often, and has seen countless trolls beaten in combat, faces a troll. Does he remember that fire and acid are necessary to stop the troll's regeneration? Under RAW, that is a question of intelligence. as the core mechanic.

The DM may set a DC and allow the player to beat it was a passive roll. The DM may require a roll, or set a DC higher than a passive roll would best, which would mean they'd ask for an intelligence roll. The DM might give advantage or a bonus based upon past experience or other circumstances. These are all things the DM might due, but they all relate back to the intelligence of the PC, not the knowledge of the player.

A failed roll might mean the barbarian never learned the lesson in the first place, or just forgot in the moment. However, in the end, it is the intelligence and skill proficiencies of the PCs, under RAW, that determine whether a PC knows something about a monster or not.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Under RAW, your intelligence ability score, and your proficiency with intelligence skills, measure your ability to recall. That is explicit. It is not a question of whether you use immersive role playing or not - it is spelled out in the rules.

Regardless of whether you've been exposed to trolls or not, through lore, experience, etc... it is your INTELLIGENCE and PROFICIENCIES that determine if your PC knows things about them when he wants to recall it. A player's knowledge, under RAW, has nothing to do with what the character knows. That is the core mechanics.

So, let's say your 6 Intelligence barbarian, who grew up amongst a clan that fought trolls often, and has seen countless trolls beaten in combat, faces a troll. Does he remember that fire and acid are necessary to stop the troll's regeneration? Under RAW, that is a question of intelligence. as the core mechanic.

The DM may set a DC and allow the player to beat it was a passive roll. The DM may require a roll, or set a DC higher than a passive roll would best, which would mean they'd ask for an intelligence roll. The DM might give advantage or a bonus based upon past experience or other circumstances. These are all things the DM might due, but they all relate back to the intelligence of the PC, not the knowledge of the player.

A failed roll might mean the barbarian never learned the lesson in the first place, or just forgot in the moment. However, in the end, it is the intelligence and skill proficiencies of the PCs, under RAW, that determine whether a PC knows something about a monster or not.

Oh, please. Please just stop.

There is nothing in the rules that defines on what occasions the player needs to make a roll to "recall lore". The first time a player says, "I"ll order an ale" do you make them roll Int to see if they can "recall" what ale is? You are free to play that way, of course, but the rules don't dictate it.

Man, I tried REALLY hard in my post to treat both approaches equally, and simply describe the difference in viewpoint, and STILL the actor-stance roleplaying police come out of the woodwork to insist their way is right and other ways are wrong. Next time I won't try to mask my derision.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I don’t know what game system you’re talking about, but this isn’t true for D&D 5E. The system restrains a low Intelligence character in the same way it restrains a low Strength character, by giving them a penalty on an ability check. What the system doesn’t restrain is player decision making which, in an RPG, I think is a good thing, although some tables like to do this.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don’t know what game system you’re talking about, but this isn’t true for D&D 5E. The system restrains a low Intelligence character in the same way it restrains a low Strength character, by giving them a penalty on an ability check. What the system doesn’t restrain is player decision making which, in an RPG, I think is a good thing, although some tables like to do this.

Its sounds nice on paper, but since much of that decision making is based on use of the intelligence of the person doing it, it still adds up to the fact that large swaths permit someone to utterly ignore whether the character is actually sharp enough to come up with something because that part is not effected by mechanics. I know its not an uncommon thing to resist any mechanization of intellectual or social capacity by mechanics, but if you're not going to resist exceeding them by roleplaying and the mechanics aren't going to do it, any intellectual or social definition of the character might as well not exist. At least in that area you're doing token play and I think it would be better to be honest about it.

 

[Mannahnin]

Thomas, that approach seems unplayable to me. How do you define "whether the character is actually sharp enough to come up with something" in any objective manner which we can agree on at the table for a ruling? Do you require EVERY idea any character has to involve an Intelligence check, or the party can't use the idea? Or do you as DM just overrule the players sometimes? "Sorry, Thag is too dumb to figure out the word puzzle and none of the rest of you did it, so you're not getting through the door."

Dumb people can have bright ideas or flashes of insight on occasion. And despite amusing hyperbole and idioms, no one in our games is playing a character "dumber than a box of rocks", or of even animal intelligence, even if they have a 3 Int.

I think the game functions much better when players can make good decisions for their characters, and it's left at their discretion whether they want to personify a low mental stat by dumbing down their own performance. A low Int score can be adequately represented by them portraying the character as generally not bright even if they do have the occasional good idea or spot the solution to a puzzle. And by the mechanics of not being good at Int-based skill checks to get info from the DM.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Thomas, that approach seems unplayable to me.

In extreme cases it probably is, which is why its normally handled internally. But if someone isn't even doing that--they're just going with the flow of how things occur to them without making some effort to realize that likely their capabilities in this area are superior to their character and address it--I consider that a failure state of that solution.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Thomas, that approach seems unplayable to me. How do you define "whether the character is actually sharp enough to come up with something" in any objective manner which we can agree on at the table for a ruling? Do you require EVERY idea any character has to involve an Intelligence check, or the party can't use the idea? Or do you as DM just overrule the players sometimes? "Sorry, Thag is too dumb to figure out the word puzzle and none of the rest of you did it, so you're not getting through the door."

Spot on. Not only that, but while we can imagine pretty easily what it's like to not be able to lift a heavy box, I don't think it's actually possible to know what it feels like to be, say, 20% less intelligent than we actually are, and thus it's impossible to roleplay it.

Let's say you have an idea about how to overcome a problem. Is this something your 8 Int character would think of? How could you possibly know that. It's one thing to say, "An 8 Str character would not be able to lift a 250 pound rock." It's entirely different...and entirely subjective if not just factually wrong...to say, "It would never occur to an 8 Int character that those letters are an anagram for ASMODEUS."

"Roll an Intelligence check!" they say. Ok, fine. Does the 20 Int Wizard also have to roll dice every time they have an idea? Let's say it's an easy puzzle, DC 10. The player of the 8th level Wizard sees the answer right away, but they roll 1 + 3 + 5 = 9. I'm sorry, Wizard, but you weren't smart enough to solve that one.

Dumb people can have bright ideas or flashes of insight on occasion. And despite amusing hyperbole and idioms, no one in our games is playing a character "dumber than a box of rocks", or of even animal intelligence, even if they have a 3 Int.

This is where the arguments about realism break down, because the rules themselves don't support the claims made by the people who claim that a low Intelligence score means something specific.

So let's say there's a logic puzzle in a dungeon, with a DC of 15. Sort of "medium hard" right?

Well, 1 in 10 riding horses will be able to solve it in one try. d20 - 4, succeed on a 19 or 20.

I think the game functions much better when players can make good decisions for their characters, and it's left at their discretion whether they want to personify a low mental stat by dumbing down their own performance. A low Int score can be adequately represented by them portraying the character as generally not bright even if they do have the occasional good idea or spot the solution to a puzzle. And by the mechanics of not being good at Int-based skill checks to get info from the DM.

Exactly.

 

[Hriston]

Its sounds nice on paper, but since much of that decision making is based on use of the intelligence of the person doing it, it still adds up to the fact that large swaths permit someone to utterly ignore whether the character is actually sharp enough to come up with something because that part is not effected by mechanics.

But characters don't come up with anything, players do. That's how they play their characters and thereby play the game. Do you also tell players of low Strength or Dexterity characters that they can't make certain decisions because it seems like something a strong or a fast character would do? Or do you tell players of low Constitution characters that they can't decide their character goes into a dungeon because only a really tough person would subject themsleves to that type of risk? Because if not, you're applying an extra penalty to players of low Intelligence characters beyond what players of other types of characters have to endure.

I know its not an uncommon thing to resist any mechanization of intellectual or social capacity by mechanics, but if you're not going to resist exceeding them by roleplaying and the mechanics aren't going to do it, any intellectual or social definition of the character might as well not exist. At least in that area you're doing token play and I think it would be better to be honest about it.

I'm not sure I follow this. I already brought up how the 5E system places mechanical limitations on characters with low scores which I feel is fairly even across the ability scores that typically get dumped. Low-Intelligence characters have penalties on checks to determine the outcome of efforts to recall or discover information. That's essentially what the Intelligence score represents. Also, I'm not familiar with the use of the term token play, but I am familiar with pawn stance as it's used in GNS theory, and I totally disagree that roleplaying your character using only knowledge and perceptions that your character would have depends in any way on treating the ability scores as a limitation on action declarations.