|
|
Post by Q Man on Aug 12, 2018 13:58:46 GMT -5
People talk about immersion in a role-playing game and there are many opinions. Some think immersion is a must and other oppose immersion. Some think it is the DMs responsibility to make it happen and other think it is the player's choice, just like an actor can choose to get into his part or not.
IMO immersion is a must and something that both the Referee and the Players should desire. IMO it is the responsibility of the DM to provide the conditions where immersion can happen and it is the player's responsibility to choose to immerse themselves in their character and in the game, in other words if you are not going to choose to buy in, why are you playing? IMO without immersion, you are cheating yourself as a player.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Aug 12, 2018 19:20:25 GMT -5
People talk about immersion in a role-playing game and there are many opinions. Some think immersion is a must and other oppose immersion. Some think it is the DMs responsibility to make it happen and other think it is the player's choice, just like an actor can choose to get into his part or not. IMO immersion is a must and something that both the Referee and the Players should desire. IMO it is the responsibility of the DM to provide the conditions where immersion can happen and it is the player's responsibility to choose to immerse themselves in their character and in the game, in other words if you are not going to choose to buy in, why are you playing? IMO without immersion, you are cheating yourself as a player. What do you think? I agree, I had players in my last group who tried to immerse themselves in the setting and their character, but most of the others did the bare minimum. Another problem though is some immersive role players will create characters that can become horribly disruptive to the group or do weird silly things that doesn't make sense for any character in any setting outside their own. |
|
|
|
Post by mao on Aug 13, 2018 10:19:33 GMT -5
People talk about immersion in a role-playing game and there are many opinions. Some think immersion is a must and other oppose immersion. Some think it is the DMs responsibility to make it happen and other think it is the player's choice, just like an actor can choose to get into his part or not. IMO immersion is a must and something that both the Referee and the Players should desire. IMO it is the responsibility of the DM to provide the conditions where immersion can happen and it is the player's responsibility to choose to immerse themselves in their character and in the game, in other words if you are not going to choose to buy in, why are you playing? IMO without immersion, you are cheating yourself as a player. What do you think? I agree, I had players in my last group who tried to immerse themselves in the setting and their character, but most of the others did the bare minimum. Another problem though is some immersive role players will create characters that can become horribly disruptive to the group or do weird silly things that doesn't make sense for any character in any setting outside their own. Like the Chars I have been posting  > as to the topic at hand, 51/49, dm/player |
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Aug 15, 2018 16:41:00 GMT -5
Immersion is the entire point of the exercise. We wanted to do more than to just read about Middle Earth, we wanted to go there. We wanted to leave our mundane and overly complex world and go to a place where life was simple, where right and wrong were clearly defined, where we could become heroes! The game of Dungeons & Dragons allowed us to do this, and more! It allows us to go anywhere, not just Middle Earth but to worlds of our own. It allows a group of people to travel together and experience adventure in a very satisfying way. We can travel vast distances in an evening and bring back what we have learned and still go to work the next day.
|
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 15, 2018 17:32:03 GMT -5
Why does this title remind me of the arguments between Orthodox Christians and Anabaptist Christians of a few centuries ago?
|
|
|
|
Post by Q Man on Aug 16, 2018 23:19:50 GMT -5
Why does this title remind me of the arguments between Orthodox Christians and Anabaptist Christians of a few centuries ago? I would love to comment on this and fully explain why, but that would be off topic for this board. Let's just say IMO the Anabaptist Christians were the part of the remnant that is mentioned over and over. As far as this thread, IMO the referee has the responsibility to create the conditions where immersion can take place 1. the referee has to be worthy 2. world building 3. building a great sandbox full of interesting stuff 4. Using his voice to create mood and atmosphere and suspense and etc with not one word more than is needed to get the players on the edge of their seats eager to find out what comes next IMO the players have the responsibility to come to the game ready to go, ready to buy in and ready to immerse themselves in the setting. 1. they must trust the referee, otherwise why are they there 2. they must buy in, otherwise why are they there 3. they must create characters that they want to play 4. they must put those characters on as alter egos and play like they are really there, thinking and making decisions at the speed required for it to feel real 5. forget the rules and just play - improv baby - take whatever it is and run with it and see where it takes you I think this is a lot of it, but not all of it. |
|
|
|
Post by hengest on Aug 18, 2018 14:35:13 GMT -5
Why does this title remind me of the arguments between Orthodox Christians and Anabaptist Christians of a few centuries ago? When did the Orthodox argue with the Anabaptists in a memorable way about baptism? Anyway, I dunno. I say both. A million details can just be boring and not enough detail makes it feel like you're walking across graph paper. The mind makes it real. I think the DM and players can find a way to pay attention to what's important so the mind is usually engaged... |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 18, 2018 20:21:25 GMT -5
Why does this title remind me of the arguments between Orthodox Christians and Anabaptist Christians of a few centuries ago? When did the Orthodox argue with the Anabaptists in a memorable way about baptism? Anyway, I dunno. I say both. A million details can just be boring and not enough detail makes it feel like you're walking across graph paper. The mind makes it real. I think the DM and players can find a way to pay attention to what's important so the mind is usually engaged... Great. Now you're gonna hold me to a specific date, and I haven't read those (then 60-year old) pamphlets I found buried in a storage shack at S. Baptist camp in 1964. Remind me Wednesday, when I get back from doctor visits. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Aug 18, 2018 21:01:57 GMT -5
Why does this title remind me of the arguments between Orthodox Christians and Anabaptist Christians of a few centuries ago? Wow, you've been around a long time if you remember things from a few centuries ago. |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 18, 2018 21:08:51 GMT -5
Almost as long as it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Aug 18, 2018 22:10:59 GMT -5
Almost as long as it seems. Like coal then? |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 18, 2018 22:18:04 GMT -5
Almost as long as it seems. Like coal then? I like it fine. |
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Aug 18, 2018 22:50:13 GMT -5
Dug out of the seam and pulverized. Sifted or as is? |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 20, 2018 5:32:14 GMT -5
I save it for when I get to meet George Reeves, so he can squeeze it into diamonds. As if that's more amazing than a rock which catches fire.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Aug 20, 2018 10:09:56 GMT -5
I save it for when I get to meet George Reeves, so he can squeeze it into diamonds. As if that's more amazing than a rock which catches fire. Speaking of immersion, I wonder if that works when he is underwater? |
|
|
|
Post by mormonyoyoman on Aug 20, 2018 12:40:59 GMT -5
He was the George Reeves Superman. He could do anything. Except find friends who weren't stupid.
That may be why he seemed to have a condescending attitude towards Earthlings.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Aug 20, 2018 13:13:19 GMT -5
He was the George Reeves Superman. He could do anything. Except find friends who weren't stupid. That may be why he seemed to have a condescending attitude towards Earthlings. You may be onto something there, that is why I have that attitude oops, if anyone had a right to that attitude he did. |
|
> as to the topic at hand, 51/49, dm/player
