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

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Meh, then the game devolves down into a game of "Gotcha!" if a DM is spending too much time policing metagaming by switching things up. If that's the alternative, I'd rather the players all bring in their knowledge about troll regeneration being foiled by fire. Then I don't have to spend as much time farting around just to trip them up.

Not really. Telegraphing that this troll is different is imperative to avoid “gotcha” gameplay. Also, a DM needn’t keep switching things up. If the players are consistent about engaging with the game world via their PCs, very little switching up is necessary. I don’t want to spend much time switching things up either, unless I think it’s going to be fun.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm implying that the people I prefer to play with would never need to be policed by anyone. The notion of ignoring the character sheet is just seen as bad play. The same way you play up flaws and whatnot, you play up EVERYTHING on your character sheet. It's all important in deciding on just who that character is.

If your low Int character never makes mistakes, never forgets anything, never gets a name wrong, never chooses poor tactics, well, I don't want to play with that character at my table. It's all about choosing what you enjoy right? To me, a player like that just sucks all the air out of the room and makes me not want to sit at that table.

A low INT character who never makes mistakes? I would think the dice would take care of that rather quickly if the player proposes something that requires a roll with the low stat. Also, I’d point out that what a player thinks their PC knows and what is the actual truth in the game world can be very different things. Ignoring or not ignoring the character sheet won’t change that.

EDIT to add: I expect most players at my table DO play to their stats in general. However, as a 5e DM, it’s not my responsibility to make sure they are doing so - they can portray their characters however they want per the very definition of “role playing” that 5e espouses. Saves me work by not having to worry about it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

So if I break out in song IRL whenever my character does a perform check, that's good for immersion, right?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I agreed with that above - if people want to ignore their stats and house-rule that you can play your super low intelligence PC as if they had a high intelligence except when making rolls, nothing is stopping you and it can be a lot of fun.

Ignore is one way to put it. Interpret stats however they like in nuanced or not-so-nuanced ways is another.

Pg 175-179. Without any hedging language, they tell you what your stats represent. This has all been discussed upthread - a few times.

You'll need to be more specific because I am not seeing anywhere in the "Using Each Ability" section which prescribes how each gradation of the ability score must be roleplayed.

The hedging language here is used to indicate that you may have alternative representations of the way the high ability score may manifest. It is saying, "Hey, here are some mainstream interpretations of high ability scores." It is not saying, "Feel free to just ignore your scores and have a low intelligence PC know every fact about every monster, spell, and magic item in the books, while having the full force of Google helping them solve riddles."

Key word: "interpretations"
And, per the definition of "roleplaying" we've both quoted now, it is up to the player to determine how to interpret.

I suspect we both feel that a player using Google to solve riddles in the game is an example of a player not playing in good faith. Being a jerk or acting like one can ruin any game. But we're not here to discuss jerk players or jerkish player actions.

A DM runs a game for two players. Characters are generated using point buy, both are non-Variant humans. One PC ends up with 16s in the physical stats and 9 in the mental stats, while the other has 9s in the physical stats and 16s in the mental stats. One is a fighter, the other a Wizard.

The PCs go out and start adventuring. They come to a bridge over a chasm. The high ability score PC navigates it easily. The low attribute PC struggles to get across. They realize that some monsters are nearby and hide - the fighter has no trouble, the wizard is spotted.

Then they reach the dungeon. There is a riddle to open the dungeon door. Both players listen and the fighter player solves it before it finishes. They enter and the fighter player realizes that the far side of the main chamber is the perfect spot for a trap, halting the duo from advancing. After avoiding the ambush, they encounter the hag and try to persuade her to help them. The fighter player realizes that she is trapped in the cave and they can free her in exchange for her help.

The fighter steal the spotlight from the things where the wizard's stats say they should excel. Further, this dumb, foolish, awkward fighter is coming off like a smart, wise and savvy negotiator. Is that something that should be addressed? Or, as the fighter do you just want to tell the wizard he was an idiot for worrying about mental stats?

Examples on a forum can be tricky but see my response above about jerk players. First of all, the fighter player is hogging the spotlight. On top of that, it doesn't seem the DM is doing anything to spread the spotlight around. So, yeah, less of a "roleplaying" issue and more of a "breaking of the social contract" issue.

And yes, I do recognize there are times rolls are called for - and yes that is a balancing component to the abilities. That is my main point, actually - that you should be using those ability scores to determine success for the mental challenges PCs face. You should not have PCs ignore these ability scores when they do 'mental things', and if their mental stats are low enough they should struggle with some things most of us take for granted that people are expected to be able to do that are not so easy for everyone.

Again, I'll say that I believe that most players at our table do use their ability scores to inform (at least partially) how they roleplay their character. In 5e, though, there is no prescription regarding ability scores for exactly how players must do this. I completely understand where you and others are coming from: you want the players to roleplay according to their stats. Perhaps that is something that has been prescribed in a past edition of D&D. I'm saying that the 5e definition of roleplaying lets the player decide what their character does (attempts, really), thinks, and says. Adhering to that definition while running 5e has freed up my ability to focus my energy towards creating engaging environments, interesting NPCs, and challenging encounters. The players handle their PCs to the best of their abilities (pun!), I take care of everything else.

People in 5E call intelligence a dump stat for almost every PC at the same time they're failing to respect how the books describe it being used. If any player can just recall what they know from the books, or use their potentially vast real world knowledge to their aid, then there is no point in having mental scores - but we do. We always have. I bet D&D always will as a sacred cow.

Please consider that there is often a difference between what a player thinks their character knows and what the truth in the game world really is, as set by the DM. I'm sure you are not suggesting that the INT 20 Wizard knows everything from the books and real world, either.

Any player is certainly welcome to recall anything they know from the books or real world in my 5e game. And, despite this, mental stats still mean something at our table because using player knowledge from the books and/or the real world will only get their PC so far. A player applying such metagame knowledge in game play while assuming it to be correct without first testing their assumptions in the game world may soon find that their PC is not faring so well. And the result at the table where I DM: players - some brand new to D&D, some who've played for decades - who roleplay their characters, warts and all, and engage with the game world through those characters. Sure there are a couple min-maxers in the group who steer clear of their PC weaknesses in game play, but we have fun with them all the same.

 

[Hussar]

Examples on a forum can be tricky but see my response above about jerk players. First of all, the fighter player is hogging the spotlight. On top of that, it doesn't seem the DM is doing anything to spread the spotlight around. So, yeah, less of a "roleplaying" issue and more of a "breaking of the social contract" issue.

The DM has provided a set of challenges, some of which speak to the fighter's strengths and some of which speak to the wizard's strengths. How is that not spreading the spotlight around?

But, because the fighter player is free to ignore his or her character sheet, then resolving the challenges that are in the wizard's ballpark is no problem, right? After all, we must not tell players how to play their characters. We must not ever judge how a player is portraying his character. Therefore, how can this be a "breaking of the social contract" issue? The fighter player is just playing his character, exactly as you claim is the more immersive way.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The DM has provided a set of challenges, some of which speak to the fighter's strengths and some of which speak to the wizard's strengths. How is that not spreading the spotlight around?

And after those initial challenges when the fighter is taking all the actions and the DM is going along with that without having the wizard participate? As I said, examples are difficult on a forum so your mental picture of what's happening between the lines in the example is different from mine is different from...

But, because the fighter player is free to ignore his or her character sheet, then resolving the challenges that are in the wizard's ballpark is no problem, right? After all, we must not tell players how to play their characters. We must not ever judge how a player is portraying his character. Therefore, how can this be a "breaking of the social contract" issue? The fighter player is just playing his character, exactly as you claim is the more immersive way.

Never said that how that particular fighter player is playing their character was the more immersive way - unless you are extrapolating from the supposition that your way might actually demand that a DM use the words "your character wouldn't do/say/think that" when someone slips from adhering to strict stats-based roleplay whereas my way actually demands the opposite, that the DM never says those words. In that case I can see how you arrived at that conclusion since I've mentioned those words in particular are immersion-breaking.

I did say, however, a player is free to determine, per the rules of 5e, how they roleplay their character. Indeed, a player using that rule as an excuse to hog the spotlight, as the player in the example is seemingly doing in that last two challenges (and presumably beyond that), is acting in bad faith. I'm not discussing people acting like jerks.

Also, I wonder where you are getting the idea that a player is "free to ignore his or her character sheet"? That just seems like a strange extreme misunderstanding of what I've been saying. Players are free to interpret stats however they like in 5e. 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.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That's not accurate. Category B is only you as a role, if you are not also playing a Halfling Cleric of Tymora or other role that can't possibly be you. If I decide to play a Halfling Cleric of Tymora, but use my personality, knowledge and thinking ability, I am still taking on the role of a Halfling, the role of a Cleric, and the role of a follower of Tymora. Those roles don't go away just because I'm playing them as me.

I suppose you could call those roles, but really they are components of the character you are role playing. That is, you make decisions as if you are a halfling cleric of Tymora who was born and lived in that world.

If you then switch to making decisions based on things that are happening in this world, at the table, based on what you know about other players (and not their in-world characters), then you are no longer role-playing the character in that world. You are playing a halfling cleric of Tymora at the table, and your character in the world is taking actions based on that.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that if you are role-playing the character, then you are making those decisions based on what that character would make under those circumstances. Their race, class, religion, and a host of other aspects make up that character. Shifting to making decisions based on what's going on at your table is no longer making decisions as that character.

 

[Maxperson]

I suppose you could call those roles, but really they are components of the character you are role playing. That is, you make decisions as if you are a halfling cleric of Tymora who was born and lived in that world.

You are altering the definition of roleplaying in order to make them components, though. Roleplaying is very simply, playing a role. It's not necessarily playing a character, though it can be. You are with that change, altering the definition of roleplay into "playing a character." Using that new definition, then sure, the other parts become components of "roleplaying." The problem is that you cannot change the definition, and so simply playing the role of fighter smashing stuff is enough to be roleplaying.

Again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm just pointing out that if you are role-playing the character, then you are making those decisions based on what that character would make under those circumstances. Their race, class, religion, and a host of other aspects make up that character. Shifting to making decisions based on what's going on at your table is no longer making decisions as that character.

Look. I roleplay the same way you do. The difference is that I'm not trying to alter the definition of roleplaying into something new. As long as you are playing a role, however you play that role, you are roleplaying.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That we agree on.



That we agree on, too.



Here I disagree somewhat. Or, at least, I disagree with what others seem to mean when they say similar things. I'll elaborate below.




Most of this I agree with. The point of departure is in determining "what would this character do". Because there is no one thing. Minds are not that deterministic.

You say, "the player honestly believes that they would not know to use fire..." I mean, sure, the player could believe that. But I prefer to ask, "What's the coolest thing this character might do, and is there a reasonable justification for it?" You can decide what your character believes, there is no right answer. And even if you could know the most likely thing your character would believe, wouldn't that also likely be the least interesting choice?

I like to use the example of Bilbo going on an adventure. That was actually not what a Hobbit is most likely to do. A Hobbit is most likely to refuse to go on an adventure. (And the rest of the story was full of things that Hobbits are unlikely to do.). I'm really glad Tolkien did not restrict himself to asking "what is the most likely thing a respectable, middle-aged Hobbit would do in this instance?" because it would have been a short, boring story. Sure, oftentimes, especially early in the story, Bilbo did do the most expected thing. But that changed throughout the story as he increasingly did more and more surprising things. Especially when it mattered. Bilbo continued to act like a respectable Hobbit, in order to portray his Hobbitishness, but primarily on inconsequential things

The response I often get is, "No, going on the adventure was actually the most likely thing to do, because Bilbo isn't just any Hobbit, he..." and then they list the reasons Bilbo is a special Hobbit.

Exactly. And your character is not just any commoner, he/she is a protagonist of the story.

So, again, while I acknowledge that it is a form of roleplaying to decide what your character "would" do, I think that "would" is entirely subjective.

But it is just as much roleplaying to ask "What might this character do, and how would their personality explain that choice?" And, "How does taking this unexpected course of action help me to flesh out this character, and make him/her more real?" And even, "How does this choice suggest that my character is evolving into something different than he/she was earlier in the story?"

And I find that sort of roleplaying to be much more interesting, and to result in much more engaging stories, than to simply ask, "What would he/she do?"

We're saying the same thing.

Roleplaying is making decisions/taking actions as that character. There is no one thing to what a character would do, but there's a much smaller number of things this character would do. Bilbo isn't just a hobbit, nor is he 'special.' He is just Bilbo, and all of the things that led up to that moment also led to him choosing to set out on that adventure. So this character, Bilbo, chose to do what he, and possibly only he, would do.

And that's kind of my point, too. The game currently puts the focus more and more on mechanics, class, race, special abilities, and the definition of "character" has shifted to a mechanically-based character build.

What is lacking in the current thrust of rules and books is developing interesting characters. A lot of TV, movies, and books are described as being "character-driven" but the advice for RPGs has been more focused on creating exiting scenes and opportunities for them (for DMs) and interesting mechanically-based characters for PCs. I have a half-orc paladin/illusionist, etc. The focus is on the action and the special abilities that makes that action "interesting."

And you're right, what "would" a given character do is very subjective. Which is why at our table we think the person best suited to make decisions about a character is the player of that character. We encourage developing complex and interesting personalities, and play is centered around the players figuring out what those interesting characters would do. We extend that as far as critical hits/misses, and even death.

The only place I might differ is asking, "what's the coolest thing..." Any given character will make cool decisions and mundane decisions. It's not always going to be the coolest thing. But it might be. And you, as the player, are the only one that will know what is right for that character at that point in time.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

You are altering the definition of roleplaying in order to make them components, though. Roleplaying is very simply, playing a role. It's not necessarily playing a character, though it can be. You are with that change, altering the definition of roleplay into "playing a character." Using that new definition, then sure, the other parts become components of "roleplaying." The problem is that you cannot change the definition, and so simply playing the role of fighter smashing stuff is enough to be roleplaying.

Look. I roleplay the same way you do. The difference is that I'm not trying to alter the definition of roleplaying into something new. As long as you are playing a role, however you play that role, you are roleplaying.

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.

In an RPG, you aren't just playing a halfling cleric of Tymora. You're playing a specific halfling cleric of Tymora. From session to session you don't play a different halfling cleric of Tymora, you are playing the same one.

I'm only pointing out that you are (or may be) changing roles when you switch from making decisions based on what is going in the game world to what is going on at the table.

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

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.

Many (most?) people may think I'm splitting hairs. Or you may never agree with my assessment. That's fine, and the reality is it's just a game and it doesn't really matter. It is you, after all, that is playing the role of Alarac in the game world, and it's still you making decisions even when you are making them based on stuff that happens outside of Alarac's realm. And I will also reiterate that it isn't bad or wrong to do it any way that you prefer.