This is where I think you're wrong. Thinking about a book or a character in a book doesn't preclude being immersed in the book. Likewise, thinking about what your character in game is going to do isn't the antithesis of immersion. Immersion is simply a state of high focus.
Certainly, but the point I'm making is that there are different types of immersion within the broad "state of high focus" category. In particular, in terms of the target of that focus. Is the player focused on being in the world; on playing his character's role in the world; on more abstract strategy; on gaming the mechanics; on analyzing the game design...?
All of these can immerse, but they do it in different ways. I'm not saying that immersion is lost entirely when there's a switch in the type of immersion. I am saying that such a switch can be jarring - and, by extension, that players who want to avoid possible jarring might avoid actions which require switching.
A player immersed in
being the character (rather than in playing in character or in high-level strategizing) might feel that he loses something in transitioning in and out of that type of immersion. If it's jarring to some, that's an issue to be aware of. The largest roleplaying problem remains the chance that players will tend not to step back and consider things in character, because they don't wish to lose the being-the-character focus.
Whenever I'm presented with significant decisions where my character's thought process would look nothing like mine, I'm forced to sacrifice either my character or my immersion.
I disagree. Because I disagree that immersion means not thinking about your character as separate from yourself.
I'm talking about that particular type of immersion - i.e. focus on being-the-character. (though it's arguable that a significant switch in type of immersion breaks immersion anyway)
Arguably the main potential problem for roleplaying is that players will tend to sacrifice their character's character in order to maintain immersion: not that roleplaying can't happen, simply that there's an increased chance that it won't.
Nonsense, a player is just as likely to make decisions based on his own mindset in, for example, tactical turn based combat, than he is to try to think about how his character might approach that combat.
Which is precisely the same problem: a different type of immersion (being-the-character-focus or tactical-focus) grips the player to the extent that he doesn't consider his character.
Do get it into your head that I'm not arguing against real-time/action play here. I'm saying that this could be a problem in real-time/action play (too much being-the-character focus for roleplay). You are quite right that it can also be a problem in turn-based tactical play (too much tactical-focus for roleplay). That doesn't refute my point, since I'm making no argument for one type of system. It simply means that such roleplaying obstacles aren't specific to being-the-character-focus, but to any type of engaging focus that doesn't take account of PC character.
Most people use their own native intelligence and understanding of the game system to navigate such scenarios.
Sure - and in doing so they cease to roleplay character/personality/mindset. This can be a problem, depending on your aims.
However, I'd still make the point that things are a little different for the specific focus on being-the-character. When you're highly focused in that sense, it's not possible you'll consider the PC's character to directly guide your actions (since as soon as you do, you've lost the sense of being the character).
When you're highly focused in tactical/strategic play, it is
possible to consider PC character - since there's no direct contradiction there. No doubt you're correct to say that many players
don't consider PC character when focused in this way - but you wouldn't be right to say that they
can't.
Of course we've had the whole acting-on-personality-flaws discussion before elsewhere, and most seem to agree that it's important to have a game-mechanical representation for such flaws, rather than simply leave it to the player to act in character. That's only where there's a clear contradiction between character and tactical pragmatism though. It's quite possible for the player to make PC character-based decisions in tactical grey areas, or where the outcomes of such decisions don't affect the tactical situation, but do affect long-term situations (e.g. killing an NPC vs letting him flee). So long as there are many medium/long-term outcomes from tactical situations, PC character-based decisions can be abundant and meaningful - all without any jarring switch away from tactical considerations.
RPG
