Roleplaying and Immersion (questions for DMs)

[Domigorgon]

How hard do you press your players to immerse themselves in your campaign? Do you expect of them to approach the game 'seriously'?

Given that the DM generally spends a lot of time preparing adventures and just about everything in the setting (unless it is all pre-made as published by a different party - but then this thread is not about that kind of DM-ing), do you find it worthwile and fulfilling?

Do you have any house rules or house 'guidelines' for PC's creation? i.e. do you require of them to submit a background, or possibly even list a few mandatory character traits or flaws?
Or are your players totally munchkin-like at this stage, creating as 'perfect' characters as possible?

How do you deal with players who "just want to throw some dice"? Do you adjust your preparation to the players ("I'll just throw some monsters at them and that'll keep them busy") or do you go out of your way to try and make them understand that there is more to your campaign than just fighting monsters and bullying random NPC's?

Ultimately, can you think of any highlights of 'roleplaying immersion' in your campaigns? As for when your players really impressed *you*? Or maybe the opposite, when they ruined it all for you?

[Solaris]

If someone's named their elven character Bill, I throw dice at them until they come up with something better. Other than that? A player will roleplay as much as he wants to roleplay. If you try to force 'em, they're not gonna do it very well at all.

[Sanguine]

If someone's named their elven character Bill, I throw dice at them until they come up with something better. Other than that? A player will roleplay as much as he wants to roleplay. If you try to force 'em, they're not gonna do it very well at all.

What about Dwarves?

[Lycan 01]

It happened naturally. The first session, one or two players dove into it, actually having word-for-word conversations with NPCs and doing things that fit their characters personalities, while others kinda fiddled around trying to get the hang of it. The next session, the players were talking in-character and having conversations based on their personalities and desires, rather than their own viewpoint of the game.

Fast forward a few weeks... I suggested my players write short backgrounds for bonus XP. I get back several short stories, and the players begin referencing things in their pasts and quirks they've picked up. Then, during one sessions, the sorcerer and paladin were wildly gesturing as they played catch with a fireball and the bard began scolding them for playing games in the middle of a serious situation, since they were lost in the fog surrounding an abandoned village. :smalleek: While he was scolding the sorcerer, the paladin began to actually roleplay like he was picking up something heavy, straining and grunting while slowly raising his arms. He then screamed "CATCH!!" at the sorcerer, and acted like he hurled a large rock. The sorcerer yelped, and actually ducked under the table.

I have all 3 about 100 XP for great roleplaying. :smallbiggrin:

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't force the issue. If I were to get bored DMing because of the players' preferences, I'd just stop DMing for them. Hasn't happened yet.

[HailDiscordia]

I expect them to be totally immersed while we are playing, but outside of that I don't expect them to think about it a ton. It's a weekly activity for our group (more for me, since I have to plan ahead). If it wound up as homework or an all encompassing hobby I suspect it would lose some of the appeal. Retreating into something that only exists on Tuesday nights is part of why it's so fun.

In my experience the personality and motives of characters develop in-game for the most part, so while it is nice to have a backstory and all that worked out ahead of time it's really at the table that these things come to life. I think players should know why their characters are the way they are, but I never expect super involved backgrounds. Sometimes that even works against things when a player has a objective that they are working towards, sometimes it hinders the others.

[Solaris]

What about Dwarves?

It was an example. In most of my games, set in Fieria, Bill is a humanized diminutive of the common Manitorn - the mountain dwarves - name Wilhelm. Conversely, if they're playing an exile dwarf then Bill is fairly common diminutive of Wilhelm and William, as the exile dwarves live among humans and more-or-less adopt their culture.

Beardy McBeerstein, on the other hand...

[Pigkappa]

Forcing them to write down a detailed background could be annoying, and I wouldn't do that. I'd just require three things:

1)All of the dialogues during an adventure are in-character.
2)They should sometime try and describe what they do in an interesting way. Just saying "I attack him" every time is boring; you can also say "I charge him with my axe trying to hit him opposite to the wizard, in order to draw his attention". A few rewards for this can also be given - if you hit him with a critical hit, I'd likely say that your maneuver made him angry toward you.
3)There's no need to have a complicated background, but some kind of background, and a personality for the character, need to exist. The players can even keep those for themselves, but hanging around with a group of dummies would be boring.

[Solaris]

Forcing them to write down a detailed background could be annoying, and I wouldn't do that. I'd just require three things:

1)All of the dialogues during an adventure are in-character.
2)They should sometime try and describe what they do in an interesting way. Just saying "I attack him" every time is boring; you can also say "I charge him with my axe trying to hit him opposite to the wizard, in order to draw his attention". A few rewards for this can also be given - if you hit him with a critical hit, I'd likely say that your maneuver made him angry toward you.
3)There's no need to have a complicated background, but some kind of background, and a personality for the character, need to exist. The players can even keep those for themselves, but hanging around with a group of dummies would be boring.

Some fairly good guidelines. A paragraph is often out of someone's reach if they're a lousy writer - and a lot of kids in this country are, thanks to the 'education' system.

[Matthew]

I usually just go with the flow; typically players have various different styles and will immerse more or less according to their own taste. If they choose ridiculous names for their characters, I let them, though I might ridicule them in a good natured way during the course of the game by means of incredulous NPCs.

[pffh]

It was an example. In most of my games, set in Fieria, Bill is a humanized diminutive of the common Manitorn - the mountain dwarves - name Wilhelm. Conversely, if they're playing an exile dwarf then Bill is fairly common diminutive of Wilhelm and William, as the exile dwarves live among humans and more-or-less adopt their culture.

Beardy McBeerstein, on the other hand...

What about the human sorcerer Ranger Halfling McRogue

[dragonfan6490]

It happened naturally. The first session, one or two players dove into it, actually having word-for-word conversations with NPCs and doing things that fit their characters personalities, while others kinda fiddled around trying to get the hang of it. The next session, the players were talking in-character and having conversations based on their personalities and desires, rather than their own viewpoint of the game.

Fast forward a few weeks... I suggested my players write short backgrounds for bonus XP. I get back several short stories, and the players begin referencing things in their pasts and quirks they've picked up. Then, during one sessions, the sorcerer and paladin were wildly gesturing as they played catch with a fireball and the bard began scolding them for playing games in the middle of a serious situation, since they were lost in the fog surrounding an abandoned village. :smalleek: While he was scolding the sorcerer, the paladin began to actually roleplay like he was picking up something heavy, straining and grunting while slowly raising his arms. He then screamed "CATCH!!" at the sorcerer, and acted like he hurled a large rock. The sorcerer yelped, and actually ducked under the table.

I have all 3 about 100 XP for great roleplaying. :smallbiggrin:

Oh how I wish my players would do this. I did recently begin a moderate level role-play campaign, and they did really well. Maybe it will turn into this.

[Solaris]

What about the human sorcerer Ranger Halfling McRogue

I don't play with twelve-year-olds, so it's never come up.

[DabblerWizard]

OP spoilered
How hard do you press your players to immerse themselves in your campaign? Do you expect of them to approach the game 'seriously'?

Given that the DM generally spends a lot of time preparing adventures and just about everything in the setting (unless it is all pre-made as published by a different party - but then this thread is not about that kind of DM-ing), do you find it worthwile and fulfilling?

Do you have any house rules or house 'guidelines' for PC's creation? i.e. do you require of them to submit a background, or possibly even list a few mandatory character traits or flaws?
Or are your players totally munchkin-like at this stage, creating as 'perfect' characters as possible?

How do you deal with players who "just want to throw some dice"? Do you adjust your preparation to the players ("I'll just throw some monsters at them and that'll keep them busy") or do you go out of your way to try and make them understand that there is more to your campaign than just fighting monsters and bullying random NPC's?

Ultimately, can you think of any highlights of 'roleplaying immersion' in your campaigns? As for when your players really impressed *you*? Or maybe the opposite, when they ruined it all for you?


As far as I can tell, two kinds of people enjoy roleplay immersion. (1) One type is actively immersed. They relish taking on the life and story of a character created through their imagination. (2) The other kind is passively immersed. These people find pleasure in the storytelling laid down by a DM.

Other types of players don't care for either of these elements, very much, or at all. These are the people that enjoy mechanics, rules, hack-and-slash. They may enjoy creating a character, if only to experience their love of combat and victory.


Players should only immerse themselves as much as they want to. Forcing them to roleplay more (or less!) than they're comfortable with, will lead to constant struggles between DM and player.

Accepting the tone of the game, is a different issue. While roleplay is a creative, and fun behavior, a game doesn't become unsettled or even derailed if a player spends little time in character. On the other hand, if a game is serious, and a player continues to belittle or make light of the game, this does derail and defocus the overall mood for the DM, and other players. It's good to let your players know what kind of game you want to play. This is also true vice versa. If you've created a very happy go lucky game, and a player keeps trying to over analyze things, for instance, then you have the same problem of disparate tones.

I'm the kind of DM that prefers roleplay-heavy games, as well as roleplay-favoring players. Luckily this isn't hard to find among 20 something year old college students. Therefore, since background creation can greatly enhance and focus character concepts, I encourage and reward background creation. Their work also helps me to sprinkle elements from their background into the overall plot, further enhancing immersion, which is what my players want.


I had a player that was more familiar and comfortable with playing d&d like a real time strategy game, as opposed to the RPG style play that I encouraged. I had her create a background, but I was fairly lenient on its content as long as she was internally consistent.

Not only did she not roleplay much, she would give almost no input when it came to group decisions in-game. I partially solved this by often asking her for her thoughts throughout the session. After a few sessions of priming her like this, I stopped trying to pull information out of her. There was no reason to force her to play in a way she didn't enjoy.


In a few previous posts, I've shared stories about how roleplay immersion has lead to fun times. I won't repost them here, besides saying in general, that, if a group likes and wants to roleplay, the more you immerse them into your story, the more they will enjoy it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Depends on the campaign and how green the players are. If it's a group of people that I'm trying to teach the game to, I generally start off with a pretty simple one-shot adventure and I let them take it as seriously as they please. If it's a horror campaign with players that I've been gaming with for a couple of years I expect them to take it seriously, because if they don't it ruins the mood and what's supposed to be scary can come off comical. I've never required back-stories from my players, but offering a little in-game bonus for it might be a really good idea, since they can certainly help with both campaign plotting and immersion.

[Mushroom Ninja]

It all depends on the group. If my group is more interested in serious roleplay, I'll work that way. If my group is more interested in wacky adventures full of random humor, then I'll work that way.

[rezplz]

I just tried something new when I started DMing with a new group last friday, and it's been working really well as far as immersion and roleplaying go. I warned the group in advance that I'd be expecting a (short) typed backstory and personality and such. Half of the group actually did that beforehand, which impressed me, and even the ones who didn't at least had come up with something in their head.

Some of the characters have drifted from the original personality the player had in mind, but I was alright with that once the character settled into a consistent personality, even if it had nothing to do with what was originally planned. And I've been able to get a couple people that I brought into this group, who normally don't roleplay, to really get into their roles.

So I guess I just have to say that after pushing roleplaying a bit more for my first time, I found that I really prefer players who really get into their character and roleplay rather than hack-n-slashers. It kind of gives me more amusement in return for setting up possible plot hooks and dungeons and such. Makes it more worth it to do my job as DM. In fact, I'm going to start pushing roleplaying a little more whenever I DM from now on.

[Katana_Geldar]

I try and make it more collaborative with my players, I ask for quality over quantity with backgrounds but pre-game I will work a little with the player and try and give or conceed a few things in terms of my campaign story so that the player feels a part of it. But that does not mean I tell them everything.

I learnt this from a DM who dealt me a real surprise on game when a person behind a plot was a close relative of my character.

[valadil]

Given that the DM generally spends a lot of time preparing adventures and just about everything in the setting (unless it is all pre-made as published by a different party - but then this thread is not about that kind of DM-ing), do you find it worthwile and fulfilling?

If it wasn't rewarding I wouldn't do it. GMing is the only activity I know that satisfies all my creatives needs.


Do you have any house rules or house 'guidelines' for PC's creation? i.e. do you require of them to submit a background, or possibly even list a few mandatory character traits or flaws? Or are your players totally munchkin-like at this stage, creating as 'perfect' characters as possible?

I recommend and request backgrounds. I used to require them, but that just made me frustrated when someone didn't bother. I'd rather not stress myself out about it.

Instead I tell the players that I'll write the game around them. If they want plot, they have to write background. They also know that if I get bored of the game, I'll stop writing it. If they want to play they have to keep me entertained. Background story is a good way to do it.

One thing I started doing in my current game is pointing out that other RPGs charge character points for rank, status, contacts, allies etc. All I charge is a couple paragraphs of text.

I also tell my players that my games are about collaborative storytelling. If they show up expecting to fight dragons they'll be bored. If they make a character who is interesting to roleplay, they'll be entertained. Usually this attracts roleplayers and repels optimizers. Sometimes it even gets powergamers to try roleplaying.


How do you deal with players who "just want to throw some dice"? Do you adjust your preparation to the players ("I'll just throw some monsters at them and that'll keep them busy") or do you go out of your way to try and make them understand that there is more to your campaign than just fighting monsters and bullying random NPC's?

Depends on the player. I realize that not everyone wants or enjoys roleplay. But I also think a lot of players have never really tried roleplaying. So I try to offer it to them. I'm pretty good at identifying bait for a character and throwing that into my plots.

One example was in my thieves guild game. I had a wizard who was kicked out of the academy for cheating on a test. His family disowned him and he was forced into a life of crime. That was the character's backstory. In game, the family hired out some thieves to fix a horse race. When the PC found out it was his father, he was livid and we had a (in character) shouting match for 20 minutes. Now, this was one of the better players in the group, not someone who just liked throwing dice, but I was very pleased with myself for getting that much of an emotional reaction out of him.


Ultimately, can you think of any highlights of 'roleplaying immersion' in your campaigns? As for when your players really impressed *you*? Or maybe the opposite, when they ruined it all for you?

I suppose that last example was a good one. In the same game, there was a mutiny in the thieves guild and the PC's patron was booted. They all stood up and shouted over that. I couldn't match their volume and just kind of took it for a while.

I'm not quite sure what it is that I do, but I'm good at getting to the players on an emotional level and leaving the character as the outlet for that. Doing so requires a good backstory.

If a player doesn't do backstory I don't give them as much story. Part of it is spite - I'd rather reward players who put effort into the game. But really it's because I can't get to a character I don't know anything about.

I've recently decided that instead of pissing off lazy players by nagging them over email, I should just spend my time writing story for players who did do their homework. These players appreciate it more anyway.

[JonestheSpy]

Campaign world immersion is a big deal to me - I expect the players to really get into character. THat being said, it's my responsibility to make it interesting enough that they want to.

Probably my proudest moment as a DM was a few months ago when the players in a new campaign went out back for a smoke break, and stayed in character chatting about their situation the whole time. It was awesome.