The wonderful James Introcaso recently wrote a blog post in which he discussed the situation where a player primarily engaged with the game through the mechanics.

One example he gave was this: A player tries to buy a suit of armour from a merchant. The player says, “Can I roll a Persuasion check to see if this lady will give me a deal on the plate armour?”

The problem James has is that he wants to run an immersive world full of descriptive role-playing, but he’s got a player who engages by referencing the rules. That’s not a match made in heaven. I think it’s doubtful that his player is, all of a sudden, going to start being a fully immersive role-player. The fact is, that many of us – perhaps even most of us – have trouble with immersive role-playing. I envy James for his ability to role-play in such a manner.

I believe there’s a continuum of ways to engage with the game’s world through role-playing. At one end, you’ve got the people who are at the table but are involved almost entirely through listening, not by actively participating. Doing so is an entirely valid way of experiencing a role-playing game. Even if they’re not jumping up to engage the bandits in witty banter, they can still add a lot to the game. And at the other end are those people who you believe are their characters — players who role-play brilliantly and make everything seem real.

Me? I’m somewhere in the middle.

But, if you’re playing in a game where the DM and other players prefer the more immersive form of role-playing games, then it’s worth seeing if you can try a few techniques that, even if you’re not comfortable being fully immersive, will help you engage with the game in a way that also satisfies the desires of the other players at the table.

Let’s look at a few aspects of the continuum of role-playing and engaging with the game.

The Listener. This player tends only to engage directly with the game when asked, instead preferring to sit back and enjoy what’s going on. I never want to force a listener to become more involved than they want to be, but they can use some of the techniques from further up the continuum as they like.

Mechanics-First. The game is, in James’s words, a great chessboard that this type of player manipulates. This form of play bypasses the explanation of *why* something works in the game story, because – to this player – that’s already understood. You use Persuasion to get NPCs to do what you want. You use Thieves’ Tools to open locks. The in-game explanation to how exactly it works isn’t that relevant, but the results are.

There are two areas where this method trips up. The first is when there isn’t a rule directly applicable to the situation, which either means the mechanics-first player needs to step up and explain more, or they get lost and frustrated. The second is when the method requires more elucidation. For example, there are some interactions where a straight Persuasion check isn’t sufficient; there needs to be more explanation of the approach or goals of the player required.

Goal-First. In some ways, this is a variant of Mechanics-first, but in this case, the player is letting the DM determine the story. “I want to make the guards let me through.” “Do I know if the corridor is trapped?” The method is missing. Most commonly, this is because the player is new, and they don’t
know what the potential techniques are!

In this case, you have a brilliant opportunity to provide suggestions to the player as to what they might try; with options provided by either the DM or the other players, or both. (As a rule, I think it’s a good idea to nominate one player to provide suggestions to a new player rather than letting everyone do it, mainly because competing opinions can overwhelm the new player!)

Occasionally, you may find a more experienced player uses this; I’d generally expect this because the situation the player finds themselves in is new.

Eventually, I think most players will move to one of the other styles of engagement from the form, but it’s useful to know that it exists.

Method-First. This type of interaction sees the player describe how they do something without using the voice of the character. For example, “I compliment the storekeeper on her beautiful eyes, and suggest she gives me a discount on the armour.” “I carefully check under the bed for traps and treasure”. “I reveal that we’ve caught the traitor, and the Duke better tell us what’s really going on, or we’ll reveal this information to the King!”

I find this the area I’m most comfortable in, and it isn’t as challenging as the full speak-as-the-character mode. Meanwhile, it gives the DM and the other players a story-based explanation for what’s happening. Every so often, I’ll speak as the character, but I tend to drop down to here when I’m not sure what the words should be.

The hallmarks of this style are that you give specific details on what you’re doing. Mechanics might be present, but you often let the DM decide what mechanics are appropriate based on your words. For instance, in the example above where I flatter the shopkeeper, it might be Persuasion if she does have beautiful eyes, or Deception if she doesn’t.

In-Character Voice. “I say, poppet, you have the most astonishingly blue eyes! They’re like that incredible blue gem, whatsitcalled, the sapphire! I wonder if you could be a dear and knock a couple of silvers off the cost of this backpack?” (Sound of backpack hitting character’s head).

This is a tremendously immersive style, and some players pull it off more naturally than others. When you get it right, you get incredibly memorable experiences. Do I think you need this style to play the game? Not at all – but some tables should certainly aspire to it.

Speaking-in-character relates to the next style.

Descriptive Action. There’s a big difference in feel between “I make a longsword attack against the troll” and “I swing my sword desperately at the troll” or even “I jump onto the table and slash at the troll’s head!”

Meanwhile, in the realm of the Dungeon Master, you can describe the effects with more descriptive language, “The troll rears back in pain as you strike it for 10 damage!” “The ogre shrugs off the blow and turns all its attention to you!”

Maintaining this level of description is something I find difficult, especially as the Dungeon Master.

However, using your character’s voice and describing the action are parts of the game that get easier the more you use them! And having other players using more descriptive methods makes it easier for you to do it. You get a positive feedback loop.

It’s important to remember that even when you have that positive feedback, playing in such a manner is not easy for many players, who are happier with one of the other styles of play. Forcing a player to play in a style they’re unhappy with is an excellent way of causing resentment.

You can help a group train in the more involved styles, but if you want a fully descriptive and narrative game, it might be that you need to find others who also want that rather than staying with your current group. If you think your group can handle it, then encourage them towards the more immersive styles. You’ll likely get amazing results!

Me? I’m happy staying with my current players. Some have been playing with me for almost twenty years, and even if we’re rarely going the full descriptive route, we’re having fun playing the game.

Are there forms of interaction I’ve left out? Do you have techniques for making the game more immersive? Let me know in the comments!