One of my favorite topics is being talked about right now. It's in the air, can you feel it? We've been dancing around the issue for decades. Just when it seems like the hobby has reached a consensus, new theories crop up, alternative paradigms. I've been discussing it back and forth with folks since writing How To Game Master Like A Fucking Boss.
The ultimate yardstick for gauging an RPG's merit and the experiences it yields - immersion.
Unrelated interjection: I'm pleased as punch to announce that Sandy Petersen will be this year's Guest of Honor at VENGER CON IV: Post-Modern Apocalypse - it's very own blog post coming soon.
This all started when I was watching this YouTube video on a channel called Family Table Top. I was happy to see he called out "fun" as a false metric for judging RPGs and the experience of playing them. Fun is vague - how can you determine how much fun was had? Fun is limiting - fun doesn't account for all the things that go into roleplaying, what we put in, and most importantly, what we get out of it. And fun doesn't take into account what RPGs are for, their purpose, what gives that medium its meaning, relative to other pastimes that are exclusively meant to provide some form of entertainment.
The vlogger was talking about connection, seeing that as the chief goal of RPGs. Connection between all participants (since he roleplays with his kids, wife, and ex-wife). I thought that was interesting, and understandable considering the context.
I told him that I could see immersion as a connection between those playing an RPG and their characters, the world, and overall narrative, but as he was using the word "connection," we seemed to be at different places.
In response to his comment, I asked if he could basically roleplay in a holodeck powered by a sophisticated A.I., would he do it? I certainly would. I can't say if that would completely replace my home gaming group as I like those guys, I like what we do at the table. I like the shared imagination and collaborative effort we all put in. The social connection aspect is not lost on me.
However, if it was a choice between gaming around a table and actually putting myself in Cha'alt for several hours, I'd absolutely jump at the chance to make that my reality, rather than simulating it using boxed text, dice, random tables, and silly voices.
And if that's the case for others, as I assume it would be, social connection (as awesome as it is) must take a backseat to immersion. If anyone wants to disagree or build a case against, please comment below.
Elsewhere, he asked how I get my players to connect to Cha'alt... and vice-versa. Below is my reply...
- I start by treating Cha'alt like it's a real world. Things are happening all around the players, big and small, fast and slow, perilous and whimsical. Even if the PCs weren't there, stuff would be going on.
- I use aesthetic keys or watchwords to keep Cha'alt consistent and cohesive. You should all know them by heart at this point... eldritch, gonzo, science-fantasy, post-apocalypse, humor, sleaze, pop-culture, and grindhouse exploitation.
- As the GM, I try to respond to the PCs as if there were an overarching narrative or meta-plot moving people and events in a certain direction like the current of a river, while still giving players as much agency as possible. There are forces at work, and those forces have their own agendas, usually contrary to whatever the adventurers have in mind.
That's probably as good an answer as I can give on how I approach my Cha'alt campaign setting, using the living world and living story as my guiding lights, simultaneously mindful that the PCs are the stars of the show.
Later, on X, I got into a discussion about immersion and what makes an RPG more immersive than another. This is subjective, clearly, because my definition of an immersive game is rules-light, a "rule of cool" freewheeling vibe, and the occasional use of storygame mechanics. A lot of gamers who also value immersion want something totally different in their RPG.
The final question I want to address is the following - why would immersion be the ultimate metric for determining the value of RPGs if half (I'm just pulling that share of the pie out of thin air) the fun comes from out-of-character and "character adjacent" banter around the table?
For starters, immersion, like various parts of the roleplaying experience requires breaks. In fact, I believe immersion benefits from stepping outside of the game in order to observe what's happing from an exterior position (a bit like thinking outside the box). For instance, when you're busy swimming, you have a different perspective of the ocean than standing on the beach. In order to fully understand the ocean, you need to experience it from at least two sides - the more "sides," the better your understanding.
Secondly, (this is something that I'm writing about now in a new book focused on the player, rather than GM) everyone around the table can be in-character while not actually speaking in-character. It's probably easier to think of it as a running interior monolog spoken aloud or stream-of-consciousness conversation happening parallel to what's actually happening in the game. Like when a player is talking from his the point of view of his character, even though his character isn't saying those things - we still know it's the character being expressed and not the player... which is key.
Even when the GM is off-handedly musing about the geo-political zones in S'kbah, he might not be speaking as the narrator... yet, he, too, is, nevertheless, speaking in-character as it pertains to the campaign setting - which is absolutely part of the game.
Third, immersion doesn't just have to be for the character, world, and story (I'm assuming that genre-emulation is swallowed by world and story in equal measure, but I suppose there are some who want to see that as a separate classification) - we can also be immersed in the game itself, the act of playing and all its parts. If we can be immersed in the game, that means everything, all around us, the totality is part of the roleplaying GAME experience. Picking up dice and rolling them is part of the game, making a Monty Python reference is part of the game, the GM asking a player how his character knows the Wacha'ati tribe's native language - that's also part of the game.
Not everyone is going to care about the same things. Take religion, for example, some folks are going to focus more on the sacraments, others following the commandments, reading the bible, going to church, walking the narrow path, proselytizing to others, etc. It's all Christianity. I think it would be disingenuous to think that all Christians value all aspects of their religion a 10 out of 10 all the time, but it's all still Christianity. Similarly, even the subjectively "less special" parts of RPGs are still aspects of the whole, and worthy of immersion, if one were so inclined.
On the other tentacle, doesn't the separation of immersion beg the question - is there a hierarchy? Sure, all are important, but are some immersive aspects more... essential than others? Going back to religion, is thou shalt not murder primary in comparison with honor thy mother and father? What about learning the stations of the cross compared to not committing adultery? Stratification seems only natural. However, I will leave it to you, dear reader, to decide for yourself which aspect of immersion is higher or lower on your personal list.
Ok, then... put that in your pipe and smoke it!
VS
