West, Matt - The Art and Theory of Immersive Roleplay (v1.01)

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY
If you derive enjoyment of roleplaying games from imagining being your character,
that is probably the beginnings of immersive roleplay. You probably identify with
your character to some extent at least at times. In this essay I discuss some aspects
of how immersion seems to work, what seems to make immersive roleplaying
games enjoyable and some sorts of techniques which may help you to ref or play
immersive roleplaying games and get the most possible enjoyment from doing so.
DISCLAIMER:- THIS
THE ONE TRUE WAY; MOST OF IT IS PROBABLY WRONG ANYWAY AND

ONLY REPRESENTS ONE PERSONS PERSPECTIVE, BUT EVEN IF ITS NOT WRONG, THERE ARE MANY
DIFFERENT WAYS OF PLAYING TRADITIONAL TABLETOP ROLEPLAYING GAMES, STORYGAMES,
WARGAMES, LIVE ROLEPLAYING GAMES AND ALL SORTS OF OTHER GAMES. IF PEOPLE ENJOY THE WAY
THEY PLAY THE GAMES THEY PLAY, THEN THAT IS GOOD ENOUGH, AND NO THEORY COULD HOPE TO DO
MORE THAN AT MOST OFFER IDEAS WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT PROVE EVEN MORE ENJOYABLE,
KNOWING THAT NO PLAYSTYLE IS GOING TO BE OPTIMAL FOR EVERYONE. ABOVE ALL, THIS IS NOT A
THEORY DESIGNED FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF GAMERS. I ENJOY MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF
GAMING, EVEN IF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY (LIVE AND TABLETOP) IS THE KIND OF ROLEPLAY THAT I MOST
ENJOY. MOST GAMERS CAN PROBABLY ENJOY ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT STYLES OF GAMING. AND ALL
THAT REALLY MATTERS, WHEN IT COMES TO HOW YOU GAME, IS THAT YOU GET TO PLAY THE SORTS OF
GAMES YOU AND YOUR FELLOW GAMERS ENJOY PLAYING TOGETHER. ALL IM DOING IN THIS ESSAY IS
IS NOT
SUGGEST SOME REASONS WHY YOU MIGHT FIND SOME PARTICULAR STYLES OF GAMING ESPECIALLY
ENJOYABLE. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY THEM AND SEE IF THEY WORK FOR YOU. BUT I
KNOW THEY WONT SUIT EVERYONE. AND NO-ONE CAN BE CRITICISED FOR NOT ENJOYING THE KINDS
OF GAMING THAT
I ENJOY. ENJOYING ROLEPLAY
OF THE KIND
I SEEK
TO PROMOTE HERE IS NOT A
GOOD BASIS FOR ANY KIND OF TRIBALISTIC IDENTITY, AND IF YOU DISAGREE, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO
GET A LIFE.
I AM ALSO CONSCIOUS THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS RATHER TOO LONG, WHICH PROBABLY
REFLECTS MY EXCESS OF ENTHUSIASM FOR ROLEPLAY IN GENERAL AND IMMERSION IN PARTICULAR.
THEREFORE FOR THE EXCESSIVE LENGTH OF THIS DOCUMENT, AND FOR THE OFFENCE WHICH IT WILL
NO DOUBT CAUSE TO GAMERS WHO DISAGREE WITH IT ON ESSENTIALLY IDEOLOGICAL GROUNDS
DESPITE MY BEST EFFORTS TO AVOID POLARISING POLEMICAL INVECTIVE,
FINALLY,
MAY
OFFER MY APOLOGIES.
STRESS THAT PLAYING THESE SORTS OF GAMES, AND PLAYING THEM IN ANY
PARTICULAR WAY, DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE
SWINE OR BRAIN-DAMAGED; ANY ASSERTIONS TO
THE CONTRARY ARE WHOLLY DEVOID OF INSIGHT INTO THE HUMAN CONDITION, IN MY OPINION.
version 1.01
text by Matt West, copyright 2010-2011 Matthew J. A. West, all rights reserved
Souls Calling is a trademark of Matthew J. A. West registered in the United Kingdom

INTRO
Roleplaying games are just that:- games we play for fun. They are not an art-form or, at least,
rarely one which even aims at achieving artistic merit, let alone succeeds. But there is certainly an
art, or skill, to playing these games fortunately, one that is easy to pick up. What follows touches
on both the basics of roleplaying games for new players and finer points for the more experienced.
Wiping the still-warm blood from his broadswords keen edge, Gyorg surveys the bodies of the
fallen. Among the corpses a young bandit murmurs in pain. The robbers clearly thought that easy
pickings awaited them when they saw the three of you a finely dressed merchant; his lady
companion; a single guardsman in hand-me-down cuir bouilli. Never did it cross their minds that
there might be so much more to your little band Gyorgs fearsome prowess at arms, Lysseias
deadly skill and, most terrifyingly of all, your occult arts. They probably never dreamt that the
legends of magic were more than childrens tales, nor in their wildest imaginings conceived that
they might ever behold its power. Finding yourself and your companions outnumbered fourfold,
with crackling lightning you charred your assailants, blackening flesh, melting bone. For you are no
mere merchant. You are Callan the Fierce, wizardly student of the elements, mage of storms.
You are ill at ease. You were not expecting robbers on the road to Landrinum. Banditry was
eradicated in these parts long ago. And these thieves did not fight like experienced warriors. Your
guess is that they were local peasants new to thievery. Why would they take up such perilous ways
in these times of plenty? You notice that one of the dead wears a bright, golden holy symbol, surely
beyond the means of one of his lowly status. Your thoughts turn to Frater Xaviar, that meddling
Astovian priest. You felt uncomfortable around him. Did he learn of your pagan practices and
arrange for these men to beset you on the road, luring them with promises of a rich merchant with
a single guard? Or what about your wizardly rival Gosric the Glum? His envy of you grows daily
There is another reason for you to feel troubled. What you did here today went against the ancient
precepts of the Shrouding. These thieving brigands were but common folk. Their path is not to face
the world of spirits, to confront the horrors lurking in the shadow, to behold the glory of the Elder
Spirits or the wrath of the angels. Your hand forced, you gave them a glimpse of the occult. In your
bolts of lightning they saw that which is forbidden to their gaze. All died, save this one, grievously
injured, flesh burnt, gasping and so young. Observing his countenance you are reminded of your
own younger brother whom you left behind in Darholme when you began your travels. You draw
closer, unsheathing your knife. You know you should end it for him now. If he speaks of what he has
seen, the spirits may be vexed and unleash their anger on you. Fate may turn its hand against you.
By letting him live, you might be doing him no favours either dark things may be drawn to his
foolish utterances and sow within him the seeds of madness, undeterred now by fear of breaching
the Shrouding, for what more can they do to violate his innocence of magic when you have cast it
to the winds? In him they may find a toe-hold from which to curse the land wherever he treads
But did he perhaps take to heart the stories his mother told him of the evil which befalls those who
spread rumours of ghosts and faeries? Will he listen now to your counsel and resolve to take with
him to his grave the secret terrors which you have shown him? Can he keep himself from the
depths of drunkenness which might loosen his tongue? Can he be trusted to stay silent until the day
he dies? Or is the swifter mercy or the justice of retribution simply to dispatch him now? You have
your knife to his throat. He tries to plead, struggling to speak through the agony of his injuries. Will
you risk your own fate to give this boy a second chance? Shall he live or die? The choice is yours
In this example, you are Callan the Fierce, and I am playing the part of the referee. Lets suppose
your friends John and Jessica are playing Gyorg and Lysseia. What might happen next?
John:-
[John has his hand slightly raised to indicate that he is speaking as himself, and not
as Gyorg ] I stride over and place my hand on your shoulder. [John extends his
hand forwards on the table to indicate that he is now speaking as Gyorg; he speaks
commandingly ] Now is not the time to kill. He has many answers to give first.
Jessica:-
[Jessica also has her hand stretched out on the table she is speaking as Lysseia. She
whispers her words, looking intently at you and at John alternately.] Ill question
him. I should be able to get him to talk without having to hurt him too much.
You:-
[You extend your hand forwards on the table to show that you are talking as Callan,
and sigh.] Very well. Youre always saying how good you are with people.
Ref:-
[The ref has his hand slightly raised, to show that he is not speaking as any particular
character.] He looks wretched. Hes having difficulty breathing, but he manages to
make eye contact. It seems hes trying to speak but finding it very hard.
Jessica:-
[Her hand raised ] I want to know if there was any particular reason why these
bandits were watching this specific road. Was it just random chance, or did someone
put them up to it? Im going to softly coax any information I can out of him.
John:-
[His hand raised ] Can I have some idea of the state hes in please? I dont want
him dying on us if theres something we can do to keep him alive while we question
him.
Ref:-
[His hand raised ] OK, Ill take John first. John, youve got Rudimentary-level
Physick, right? Hmm your best judgment is hes in a fairly critical state. If he exerts
himself he could die at any time. If he rests and is tended to carefully, hell probably
live, but you reckon hell need assistance he wont make it on his own.
John:-
[His hand extended on the table, his brow furrowed, speaking anxiously ] Hold on.
His injuries look quite bad to me. Well need to be very careful with him.
Jessica:-
[Her hand extended on the table, uttering her words in a reassuring voice ] Ill be
extra gentle then. Should we let you dress his wounds first, before I question him?
John:-
[His hand extended on the table ] Yes please. [Raises his hand ] Um, I still have
some of that curative concoction I got from the herbalist in Darholme dont I. Ill
unstopper the bottle and put it to his lips, he can take as much as he likes.
Ref:-
[His hand raised ] As you unstopper the bottle you notice a faint whiff as if it
might be off or something. Are you still going to offer it to him?
John:-
[His hand raised ] Ah that sounds a bit iffy. Ill offer him one of my wineskins
instead.
Ref:-
[His hand raised ] He drinks your wine nervously. You can see a little colour
returning to his face as he does so.
John:-
[His hand raised ] Meanwhile can I tie some bandaging around his wounds?
Ref:-
[His hand raised ] Sure. Once youve done that you reckon hes probably stable for
now. OK, Jess, lets have a double roll on your Persuasion please. [The ref rolls some
dice secretly so the players dont absolutely know if the bandit is being truthful.]
Jessica:-
[Her hand raised ] 13 and 20!
Ref:-
[His hand raised ] Not a bad roll!
You:-
[With your hand raised ] Ill get my whetstone out and start sharpening my knife
and giving the bandit the evils.
Jessica:-
[Her hand raised ] Right, I trace my dagger over his throat but I dont cut him. I put
my hand on his forehead. [Extends her hand forwards on the table and speaks softly,
looking at the ref.] I dont want to hurt you. I dont think Im going to have to hurt
you. All you have to do is start talking. You can take it slowly.
Ref:-
[Extends his hand on the table and eyes Jessica warily, then speaks nervously and
slowly, as if in severe pain and afraid ] If I talk, whats going to happen to me?
Jessica:-
[Her hand extended on the table ] Tell me everything, and Ill do the best I can for
you. I can put in a good word for you with my friend here. [Her hand raised ] I
look over at Callan. [Her hand back on the table ] Sometimes he gets very angry
with people I guess youve just seen that, havent you but I might be able to
calm him down, if you cooperate
Ref:-
[His hand raised ] OK, the guys looking absolutely petrified. etc.
IN-CHARACTER IMMERSION THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

Can you begin to see through Callans eyes, to picture an ancient world where magic is kept hidden,
to wrestle as Callan would with the life-or-death dilemma of the young bandits fate? Thats the
beginnings of immersion in character or in-character immersion, the key to how traditional
roleplaying games are classically (though by no means always) played taking your characters
point of view, thinking his thoughts for him, internalising his perspective, immersing yourself in his
experience of the game-world and above all starting to identify with him. The character can begin to
take on a life of his own; you can get an instinctive sense of how he thinks, feels and acts in a given
situation. You can empathise with him almost as if he were real. He comes alive for you, and through
him the game-world and his specific experience of it come alive for you too. You share the
sensations and drama of his life. Its a rich, varied, vibrant, intense, colourful and absorbing pursuit.
You do not, of course, at any stage believe that you literally are your character. But you may have
what drama theorists call dual consciousness or double consciousness (see for example Merlin,
Beyond Stanislavsky The Psycho-Physical Approach to Actor Training, Nick Hern Books Ltd, 2001 at
page 80 and Dawson, Drama and the Dramatic, Routledge, 1970, in the Critical Idiom series). I am
not suggesting that roleplaying games are generally comparable to serious acting worthy of the
name of art, but immersion and dual consciousness may represent some limited aspect of common
ground between the two, albeit that they serve very different purposes in these different contexts.
By getting into character and adopting your characters outlook and his view of the fictional events
of the game you begin to imagine being your character to the extent of identifying with your
character to some greater or lesser degree, putting your other thoughts to one side so that you are
less starkly conscious of your usual identity and to some extent conscious of your characters. This
almost inevitably involves reasoning at least partly as your character would, but it is the feeling of
identifying with your character which is really the definitive feature of in-character immersion.
Imagining being your character may be immersion; identifying even slightly with him certainly is.
You may experience immersion lightly or more deeply. Relatively deep immersion is probably the
same thing as dual consciousness in the drama theory sense, and particularly deep immersion has
even been compared by some to a gamer feeling as if he were possessed by his character, though
most immersive gamers would probably struggle to identify with a feeling of being possessed.
What you experience may feel far less intense than possession or even dual consciousness, but if
you feel even a modest sense of identifying with your character, that is at least light immersion.
In my view in-character immersion in this sense is simply a very natural part of human psychology, a
common mental state. Even when we merely read or listen to a story or watch a film, we may
identify to some extent with a particular character, at least from time to time. In an immersive
roleplaying game that feeling tends to be magnified because you are playing the role of one
particular character yourself, and doing so to the extent of actually thinking for that character and
reasoning as he would. Even gamers who have no concept of immersion or whose goals for play are
other things entirely may nonetheless experience at least light immersion quite frequently.
WHY IN-CHARACTER IMMERSION?
In-character immersion is not the only way to enjoy roleplaying games (traditional or otherwise),
and certainly not the only legitimate way (if such a thing required particular legitimacy, which it
does not), but it is one of the fundamental phenomena of roleplaying for most gamers who are
interested in something beyond tactics, strategy and the social experience of gaming in bringing
the story or the characters to life, in telling a story, in exploring the game-world or in
imagining being the character. In-character immersion generally speaking heightens such gamers
experience of the fictional events of the game and makes the whole thing seem more vivid, more
colourful, more alive and more real. There is particular enjoyment for many gamers in feeling as if
they are in a way their characters when you experience in-character immersion you are not simply
pretending to the others in your gaming group that you are your character, but (psychologically)
more importantly pretending to yourself that you are your character, albeit of course not to the
extent of convincing yourself completely. But beyond that particular feeling, many gamers find that
in-character immersion gives the game-world as a whole, or if they prefer the term the story, a far
greater depth of experiential resonance for them, a far more profound emotional impact.
PRINCIPAL FACTORS IN DEVELOPING AND FACILITATING IN-CHARACTER IMMERSION
When youre playing a roleplaying game, in-character immersion depends on conjuring up images of
the game-world and of your character and his thoughts and emotions and on the suspension of
disbelief. Immersion is both bolstered by and helpful in developing a sense of ownership of your
character, a stake in his personal story, which helps you to engage with the game and the gameworld and get maximum enjoyment from play. All these things can feed into each other.
It helps if the game provides ease of play and in particular smooth flow of play because interruption
to the flow of the game can disrupt immersion. But it may also help if the game provides what I term
anchoring or reification, which is when the games rules or conventions give your characters stats a
tangible and readily perceptible impact on the game, thus making those stats appear to describe real
qualities that the character really has (anchoring those qualities in your experience of the game or
reifying them):- if the characters stats describe real qualities, in my view that implies (in your
subconscious psychology) that the character is real too (and also that the game-world is real).
Anchoring or reification is not a question of believability. In fact, its in tension with believability.
Hard and fast rules may provide the most effective form of anchoring or reification, but simple hard
and fast rules tend to lack believability and interfere with the suspension of disbelief, and complex
hard and fast rules, though less lacking in believability, are still not as believable as softer rules or
unfettered human narrative, and may reduce ease of play. So for maximal immersion, the rules
system of a roleplaying game, but more importantly the way that you use that rules system, has to
achieve a balance among three competing factors:- anchoring/reification; believability; smooth flow
of play. Generally speaking the most effective way to assist immersion is to keep any complex hard
and fast rules for direct use on an occasional basis only, but use them as an important contextual
element to guide how you determine what happens when you are not directly applying those rules.
Why is it so important to consciously make only sparing use of complex hard and fast rules, and to
use human discretion at other times (or simpler rules which provide or allow for human discretion
thus maintaining believability)? The answer is:- in traditional roleplaying games the person who is in
charge of interpreting and applying the rules, narrating outcomes and facilitating play in general, the
referee, is generally speaking not particularly deeply immersed in character. He may therefore easily
find himself out of step with the players, who, being charged with roleplaying only one character at a
time, are far more deeply immersed in character. The players, valuing this feeling of immersion,
expect freeform play with minimal direct reference to the rules. The referee, out of step with the
players deep immersion, can all too easily fail to appreciate how heavy use of the rules disrupts the
players immersion and feels jarring to them. Tim Bancroft in his commentary on roleplaying games
in a column on http://www.ukroleplayers.com refers to conflicting expectations of ludus and paidia,
which in the context of immersive roleplay amounts to more or less that same tension.
IN-CHARACTER IMMERSION AND OTHER MEANINGS OF IMMERSION
The kind of immersion which matters most to an analysis of roleplaying games in general is
immersion in character, in the sense of identifying to a greater or lesser degree with your character
(the sense in which I use the term), or at least in the sense of immersion in your characters
perspective, in his thoughts and feelings and in his view of events as they unfold.
You may also be said to immerse yourself in the events of the game generally (which some people
call the story) and in the game-world, just as you immerse yourself in a film or book even without
focusing on a particular character. Of course immersion in that last sense is in a way almost the
whole point of any roleplaying game or similar pursuit (even a purely tactical and strategic game), as
it is synonymous with being engrossed in the game, which is almost synonymous with having fun
(though not quite, for casual or social gaming is fun for social reasons rather than purely due to
engagement with the game). But so general is the notion of immersion in the events of the game
generally, or immersion in the story, that it is of no real analytical usefulness in a discourse on the
art and theory of roleplaying games. Of course you want your players to be engaged, engrossed or at
any rate entertained but thats so trite that its hardly worth stating.
For that reason alone, there is really very little point in using the term immersion to refer to
anything other than in-character immersion (whether strictly in the sense in which I use that term of
identifying with your character, or in some closely related sense).
The fundamental importance of the concept of immersion in this sort of analysis lies in its centrality
to many, many gamers experiences of roleplaying games. In-character immersion, being so natural
to human psychology, is more or less the default mode of roleplaying that probably most gamers
adopt to at least some extent, often without even realising that they are doing so. Whether that be a
light or a deep level of in-character immersion, it tends to inform gamers preferences in many
subtle ways.
For most gamers this makes it valuable to have some form of understanding, conscious or
subconscious, of what facilitates in-character immersion, what obstructs it, what makes it enjoyable
and how it can be used to make other facets of the game more enjoyable:- even if it is not a
particular gamers preferred mode of play, it may be his friends. This makes it important to
construct a clear discourse around the topic of in-character immersion, and it greatly assists to have
a single word, immersion, which most gamers will readily associate with essentially this concept.
For this reason I will generally use the term immersion as a short-hand for in-character immersion
in the sense of identifying, to a greater or lesser degree, with your character.
ESCAPISM?
Playing an immersive roleplaying game is not about escaping from the real-world. Its about
throwing yourself into a fantasy world, one particular characters experience of that fantasy world
and that one character. Its about positive and active engagement, not passive disengagement. So
escapism is a very poor word for it.
AN INTERNAL, SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE
The point of playing an immersive roleplaying game (as opposed to other kinds of roleplaying game)
is not about what an outside observer can see you doing. Roleplaying immersively is about how you
feel. The point of the game is how you feel.
You cant really understand what roleplayers are doing roleplayers of any description, but above all
immersive roleplayers by watching them and modelling their behaviour based on externally
observable, empirically verifiable data, or by neatly pigeonholing them into particular categories of
different species of roleplayer according to how they consistently behave or according to what
agenda they appear to pursue in making choices for their character. You can only really understand
what roleplaying games are all about by participating in games, by empathising with gamers and
through introspection.
A MISUNDERSTOOD PHENOMENON
Unfortunately, many attempts to theorise about roleplaying games seem to have gone wrong
precisely because the theorists attempted to bring a quasi-scientific or quasi-empirical approach to
bear. Some have been content with the notion that gamers enjoy different things about gaming, and
to categorise the different things that gamers enjoy, but to offer no real insight into precisely what it
is that makes those things enjoyable, in terms of the gamers internal, subjective experiences, nor
into how their psychologies work. Its no answer to say that each individual is different:- we are all
humans, and for all our differences we mostly have a great deal in common with each other. A
mantra of live and let live is commendable in many ways, but it says virtually nothing useful about
how to make roleplaying games more enjoyable for any particular group of gamers. For these
reasons many theories have tended to produce a whole series of red herrings. Sadly, it is immersion
which tends to have been the most overlooked of the major phenomena of roleplaying, probably
because as the most internal and subjective of these phenomena it is the hardest to engage with
through external observation. And it really is a great shame that immersion has been marginalised
by certain theories and games designers, because fundamentally it is central to many, many gamers
enjoyment of the games they play, whether or not they consciously analyse it in terms of immersion.
THE POPULARITY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY
Leaving aside those roleplayers who play for essentially social reasons or whose interest is in tactics
or strategy, for probably the majority of gamers who particularly value either story or character
it is at least in part the internal, subjective experience of immersion and the joy of facilitating that
experience for others which is the fun of the game. And fun is the whole point.
In particular, gamers who are consciously aware that they most enjoy imagining being their
character are almost by definition immersive roleplayers, even those who prefer to immerse only
lightly. But it seems to me that many gamers who do not articulate what they enjoy about gaming in
quite those terms are nonetheless immersive roleplayers, or at least that immersive roleplay is a
significant part of what they enjoy, even if it is not the major focus of it (I might well be wrong).
There are, absolutely, many gamers for whom immersion will be of limited interest, and it is
unfortunately necessary in a discussion such as this one to emphasise the trite and obvious point
that whatever is fun for them is fun for them and fun they should have; immersion should not be
forced upon them, if it were even possible to do so (which it isnt). Most of them are gamers who
value tactics, strategy or the social experience; a minority may be interested in collaborative
storytelling or even in being essentially an audience, but without finding any enjoyment at all in
identifying to any significant extent with or imagining being their particular characters. Whatever
games they are playing, and whatever rules systems they may be using, traditional or nontraditional, there is no criticism to be levelled at gamers for enjoying whatever they enjoy. But what
they enjoy about gaming is not my principal focus here. I do not believe that there is One True Way
of enjoying roleplaying games, but I do believe that immersive roleplay is great fun, is something
that many gamers can connect to and is something that its worth shouting from the rooftops about.
If youre a roleplayer but are unsure whether immersive roleplay is for you, ask yourself this:- do you
ever imagine being your character? in the games you play, do you tend to be playing one character
at a time, rather than many? Do you tend to play one character throughout a whole session of the
game? If so, could that be because you can only really vividly imagine being one character at a time
you can only really identify with one character at a time? If so, could that be an instance of
immersive roleplay, and could that possibly be a significant part of what you enjoy about the game?
Conversely, if you do not enjoy immersive roleplay, but rather enjoy tactics, strategy, story in one
form or another or the social experience of gaming, why on earth would you want to restrict yourself
to playing essentially a single character at a time? Surely tactics, strategy and storytelling can be
made more interesting by having several or even many characters at your disposal, and the social
experience would be none the worse for it? Surely there is no real reason to limit yourself to one
character at a time, other than the natural limits of in-character immersion? Isnt the simplest
analysis, the reasoning which passes Occams Razor, that if you prefer to play one character
throughout a session of a game, thats because you enjoy imagining being, and to some degree
identifying with, that character, and are actually enjoying immersive roleplay? I would suggest so.
DOING-BY-SPEAKING
Did you notice how in the example of play that I set out at the start of this discussion of roleplay the
players were picking what their characters would do?
An immersive tabletop roleplaying game is played out through discourse. As a player, you choose
how your character acts by saying what he does. You may be forgiven for imagining that that carries
with it a description of what your character is doing, at least provisionally or by implication, even if
the ref can always turn round and say no (or sorry, your herbal concoction has a bad whiff to it
or even, in an extreme case, you dont actually say what youve just said because your character
couldnt possibly know that). But the point isnt really to describe what your character is doing in
the way that youd tell a story for instance. The point of what youre doing is simply to choose your
characters next move, as part of the process of playing the role of that character.
Its a verbal election, a verbalised choice. Its a bit like when youre getting married and you say I
do. You dont say I do to convey a narrative description of how youre behaving when you make a
promise. You say I do to actually make the promise. Its doing-by-speaking, or (please forgive the
verbiage) what linguists call an illocutionary act. In a sense it is saying something so as to conjure
something into existence. I draw my dagger across the bandits throat is meant to conjure into
existence your characters immediate (fictional) intention of drawing his dagger across the bandits
throat.
Your choice of action for your character doesnt become a part of the in-game events until the ref
accepts it, whether he does so expressly or tacitly, either by implication or even by private
acknowledgment in his head, consciously or subconsciously. Until then it simply has no descriptive
force at all and is not part of the narrative of the game. This means that in a sense the authentic or
definitive version of the game-world is the version which exists in the refs mind, although
obviously what matters for you, the player, and for your experience of the game and ability to play
your character, is the version of the game-world conjured up in your mind, rather than the refs.
ROLEPLAYING, NOT STORYTELLING
A bunch of people sitting around a table talking, and the subject-matter of their discussion translates
into what happens in a fictional world it looks superficially as if theyre telling a story. It looks a lot
more like people telling a story together than like actors playing roles on a stage. But when you look
at immersive roleplaying from a players internal perspective, the point of what hes doing each time
he verbally elects his characters actions isnt to take part in telling a story; its simply to play the role
of his character, through discourse, while seeing through his eyes and identifying with him. He
doesnt direct his character; he simply states what he imagines him trying to do.
A story of sorts can, for sure, be seen to emerge incidentally as the ref, often tacitly, accepts the
actions that the players elect for their characters:- when the ref accepts and validates your choices
of action, that at least implies a description of what your character is doing, usually precisely along
the lines of whatever youve already verbalised. But it isnt the players verbalised choice in itself but
rather the refs acceptance of that choice which creates a description out of what the player has
said. As a player, at least, youre not actively telling a story. At most you might be helping the ref to
tell a story, although thats not the immediate point of what youre doing, which is to play a role.
When the ref verbally elects what any of his many characters do (the non-player characters), that
may be said to be in a way storytelling, because the ref has the authority to make those choices part
of the games events, so his verbal elections immediately imply a description of what happens. But if
anyone is actually engaged in storytelling in a meaningful sense, its only the ref, and not the players.
The joy of the game doesnt come from shooting footage of your gaming group, playing it back,
watching it and pretending its a film or a collaborative narration. Its not about the end-product, or
even what the end-product would be if you recorded it and played it back. The joy of the game
comes from living through it, experiencing it. The game is not about externally observable
behaviour. Its about how you feel inside. Inside, you feel like your character, and you feel as if
youre in the middle of the imaginary world of the game, by way of a form of what I referred to
above as dual consciousness not in the sense of literally believing that you are your character,
but in the sense that your usual life and self may well be put to the back of your mind while you
adopt your characters perspective as your main or entire focus. Youre taking on your characters
persona, playing a role. Youre not setting out to create a piece of literature. As a player youre not
even literally describing the in-game events only the refs acceptance of your verbalised choices
creates any kind of strict description out of them at all. So, as a player, youre not telling a story
youre simply playing a role. Thats why we call it a roleplaying game, and not a storytelling game.
The ref is in a different position to the players. Sometimes the ref isnt playing a role at all. Hes in
charge of the game. Hes facilitating roleplay for the players. He might be describing a complex
environment or the actions of many characters at once. At least some, and perhaps in a sense all, of
what the ref does pretty much is storytelling, even if its a frequently and heavily interrupted kind of
storytelling (when players make their choices, dice are rolled and so forth). But a game, any game at
all, isnt about what the person does whos merely in charge of running the game it isnt named
after what the referee does. A game is about what the people do who are playing it, and thats how
it gets its name. You dont call football watchball because thats what the ref does. You call it
football because it involves your foot making contact with the ball (or not very often making
contact with the ball, if youre American). Roleplaying games, like other games, are named after
what the players do, not what the ref does. The refs in charge of the game. Sometimes he might
play a role; sometimes he might do something else. But what he does isnt the games defining
characteristic. The players play roles. Thats what the games about. Thats how it gets its name.
Even so its clear (though controversial in some quarters) that what is literally a story happens to
emerge through the course of play, including as the ref accepts the players verbalised choices and
tacitly creates pre-verbalised descriptions out of what the players have said. But in any event that
emerging story is only incidental to play, and not the point of it. You dont call an aeroplane a
contrail-maker because it happens to make contrails. You call it an aeroplane, because it soars in
the air. You dont call roleplaying storytelling because it may happen to leave a story behind it.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF GAME IMMERSIVE TABLETOP RPGS; LARP; STORYGAMES; WARGAMES; CASUAL GAMES
THE AUTHORITATIVE* DEFINITIONS

CASUAL GAMING gaming with a light level of psychological commitment to the fictional events of
the game and generally a greater level of commitment to the social experience of the game;
CASUAL GAMING may involve light immersion, storygaming or almost any conceivable playstyle;
GAME OF CHALLENGE a game which due to a puristic focus (in the way that it is being played,
rather than in the rules or design of the game) on tactics, strategy or other forms of challenge
both lacks the three-dimensionality of storylike qualities and does not foster immersion;
HYBRID PLAY a combination (whether or not precisely simultaneous) of any two or more styles
of psychologically committed gaming such as immersive roleplay and storygaming;
HYBRID GAME a game which tends to produce hybrid play and does not have a significantly
greater tendency to lead to any one particular style of gaming such as immersive roleplay or
storygaming, but rather tends to lead equally to two or more such playstyles;
IMMERSION imagining being your character to the extent of identifying with him to a greater or
lesser extent; deeper levels of immersion may amount to dual consciousness in the acting
theory sense or to feeling as if you are possessed by your character, but even if you are simply
imagining being your character it may well be right to describe that as (very) light immersion;
IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY roleplaying in a state of immersion, or roleplaying with a view to attaining
a state of immersion by reasoning as your character would reason and adopting his perspective;
IMMERSIVE RPG (1) an RPG which, in the way it is being played (and regardless of the design or
intent of the rules system), tends to foster immersive roleplay on the part of the players;
(2) a game designed to be played as an immersive RPG in the first sense;
LIVE ROLEPLAY or LARP roleplaying where you physically act out what your character does;
STORYGAME (1) a game which, in the way it is being played (and regardless of the design or
intent of the rules system), tends to foster storygaming on the part of the players;
(2) a game designed to be played as a storygame in the first sense;
STORYGAMING in a game which has fictional events of a storylike nature as its subject-matter,
playing with a view to influencing or directing the shape, course, direction and/or pace of those
fictional events; a games fictional events are not storylike if they are two-dimensional, for
instance consisting only in combat or other tests of strategy or tactics or events of pure chance;
WARGAME a game of challenge (see above) which focuses more or less exclusively on combat.
* in the strict sense of hotly contested, highly controversial and which have just been made up by Matt.
Souls Calling is designed to be an immersive tabletop RPG.

An immersive tabletop roleplaying game is a particular kind of roleplaying game (RPG) which you
play in a small group. The essence of such a game is that people take ownership of particular
characters in a fictional game-world, identifying with those characters, seeing that world through
their characters eyes, making decisions for their characters and witnessing their characters
personal stories as they unfold. Their characters actions are generally verbalised, as opposed to
being acted out, but you might demonstrate what your character is doing, and typically, though not
necessarily, you will often speak directly as he would, adopting his voice and mannerisms.
These games can be exceptionally dynamic, embracing the excitement of challenge and the
poignancy of your characters dilemmas and conjuring up real-world sensations of mystery,
suspense, discovery, intrigue, triumph, tragedy, fear and horror. They can also be a marvellous
occasion for conviviality and even comedy. As a player (rather than as the ref) the principal focus of
what youre doing is, generally speaking, on in-character immersion, quite possibly to the point of
dual consciousness (though you never believe that you literally are your character). You dont
focus on crafting, fostering or catalysing some kind of story with any particular qualities, as a
player at least (rather than as the ref), or at least not as your predominant contribution to the game.
What I am describing is of course the most puristic, hardcore way of playing an immersive tabletop
roleplaying game. There are mixed styles of play too, which I will briefly touch on shortly.
There is another sort of immersive RPG called the live roleplaying game (or, for some reason
controversially in some quarters, LARP, standing for live-action roleplaying game) where the
participants generally act out what their characters do, rather than verbalising it, and those games
can be well worth playing. They often have a lot in common with immersive tabletop RPGs; good
LARPs can be far more immersive and intense, though they usually have a narrower scope and need
a great deal more effort and energy to get right. There are many different kinds of LARP. Some use
tabletop-type mechanics to resolve combat, which can be detrimental to immersion; I call those
games quasi-LARPs or semi-live roleplaying games because the combat aspect is not, in my view,
truly live. Others use a kind of light-contact sparring, which demands some level of physical fitness
and courage and more or less inevitably entails some risk of real-world injury. A full discussion of
LARPing would be out of place here but it is well worth investigating if you have the opportunity.
Cousin games to immersive RPGs include what can be called storygames and wargames. Storygames
and wargames tend to look just like immersive tabletop roleplaying games from a casual observers
perspective (and may even use the same formal rules), except that the participants primary focus is
on the externally observable product (the story in a storygame or the course of combat in a
wargame in either case, essentially, the course of the games fictional events) and not on each
players in-character immersive experience. Where immersive roleplaying games are immediate and
internally-focused, games played as storygames or wargames are abstract and externally-focused.
In a true storygame ref and players focus on creating a certain kind of game-narrative together.
Narrative authority (meaning the power to decide what is or is not part of the fictional events of
the game) is most typically shared out among the participants. This may mean that the players can
narrate things which are not their characters actions (possibly subject to the refs rarely exercised
veto, or the collective veto of the group as a whole), or it may mean that the players are not subject
to the refs veto when they narrate what their characters do (though they may be subject to the
groups collective veto), or even in other respects. Even if narrative authority is not at all shared, if
the players focus is on influencing the shape, course, direction and pace of the games fictional
events, rather than on identifying with their characters, it is probably fair to call the game a
10
storygame. Although in that instance the players are not strictly telling the story (just as they are not
telling a story in an immersive roleplaying game without shared narrative authority), the players
certainly are influencing the story, and are doing so as their main contribution to the game.
A non-immersive, story-focused game where the players have particularly limited influence over the
course, shape, pace and direction of the games fictional events (for instance because they are
heavily railroaded) would seem more aptly described as a game of being told a story. Most
committed (as opposed to casual) gamers tend to be overtly hostile to heavy railroading, and for
good reason:- the ref, when he railroads the players, is in effect playing the game for them. I will say
more about railroading later on. Gaming which can fairly be called being told a story is, I should
add, a rare and extreme case, and almost hypothetical:- it takes only very modest player impact on
the game for it to take on more of the shape of an immersive roleplaying game or a storygame.
In a wargame, you and your opponents or collaborators focus on combat after combat, treating your
characters, if you have identifiable characters of your own, essentially as pawns.
Storygames and wargames very often involve an element of incidental immersion in particular
characters points of view and concomitant immersive roleplay. The difference between a
storygame or wargame and an immersive RPG is one of focus, and may be a difference of degree
rather than strictly a difference of kind. It must follow that some games could be considered to be
hybrid games, or to constitute a borderline case which might reasonably be thought to fall into
either of two camps. Whether a particular group are gaming in a storygamey way, in a wargamey
way or immersively is not something which you can tell from which set of rules they are using. It
depends on how they are playing the game in practice.
In abstract storygaming or wargaming the players focus is on the shape of the game-narrative (the
course, direction and pace of the story or events of the game). In an immersive RPG the players
focus is on in-character immersion as a tool to help you feel the games fiction more keenly and
become more deeply absorbed in it. Thats the nub of the psychological contrast between
storygames/wargames and immersive RPGs:- the dichotomy between on the one hand distancing
yourself from your characters perspective so as to control or manipulate the general sequence of
in-game events to fit some particular model (storygaming or wargaming) and on the other hand
heightening your sense of engagement with the game by immersing yourself in your character,
adopting his point of view at the expense of conscious, deliberate control of the direction the ingame events take, and hence identifying with your character (immersive roleplay).
The reason why this difference is so important is that, dual consciousness or no dual consciousness,
you cant actively push the events of an RPG in a particular direction without taking a global view of
the game, which intrinsically means stepping away from a particular characters point of view for a
time. Stepping away from a characters point of view even for a short time may have a lingering
impact on your immersion in his viewpoint, his experience of the game-world and the games events
globally. Quite what impact it may have varies from person to person and from situation to situation,
but generally theres an impact, and its worth being aware of.
There are also no doubt other ways of playing games similar to immersive roleplaying games,
storygames or wargames which dont fit neatly into any of these categories games where the
players are not prioritising in-character immersion (and perhaps even are not really experiencing it
to any significant degree), have no desire to co-create or even listen to a story and are not focusing
purely on combat or even challenge. Such games may include roleplaying games which are being
played broadly according to the traditional model but without the players being particularly
committed to their characters, to the games fictional events or to combat or indeed any kind of
11
challenge. Such games, or some of them, might be best termed casual games, and their essence is
probably that the ref is providing light entertainment for the players:- the ref is storytelling, and the
players are helping to influence the story by playing the role of their characters, but in a relatively
uncommitted fashion. Without in-character immersion, such games cannot really be thought of as
immersive RPGs. They suit social gamers those who play for the craic. Of course there is nothing
wrong with playing games this way I regularly play casual roleplaying games myself. But they offer
a fundamentally different and psychologically lighter experience to that of immersive roleplaying,
even if in many cases they can be played using the same rules.
If your focus is on in-character immersion and the game arrives at the exploration of poignant
dilemmas and dramatic themes in a subtle and seemingly natural way without disrupting your
immersion, that is an immersive RPG. If your focus is on having the players deliberately thinking
about the direction the games events are taking and pushing them towards the exploration of
poignant dilemmas and dramatic themes regardless of the possible detriment to their in-character
immersion, for instance by giving all the players overriding mechanical incentives to push the
games events in particular thematic directions and stark and direct narrative authority to do so,
that is a core example of a storygame. If you constantly railroad the game towards set themes
regardless of the participants sense of meaningful choice or a stake in their characters and hence
ruin their in-character immersion but also frustrate any possibility they may have of influencing the
story, that is neither a storygame nor an immersive roleplaying game. In an extreme case its
more of a one-man show or a game of being told a story.
As another example, if your focus is on immersion in character and the game arrives at fight upon
fight in a subtle and seemingly natural way without disrupting your immersion, thats an immersive
RPG. If your focus is on pushing the games events relentlessly towards combat regardless of the
impact that has on in-character immersion, meaning that the players are constantly looking for a
fight no matter what, that is a wargame. Any immersion is likely to be very limited. Its difficult to
describe such a game as a storygame, even though the players are deliberately seeking to influence
the shape of the in-game fiction (towards constant combat), simply because it is two-dimensional.
That is not necessarily a criticism:- Chess is in this sense a two-dimensional game, and has a huge
following. But games of pure tactics and strategy do not attempt to bring the characters or story
to life, so two-dimensional seems a fair description. A game of pure hack-n-slash, where you
have no sense of immersion in your characters perspective and everyone openly knows that the
game consists essentially of running combat after combat, is by this definition a wargame and not
an immersive RPG.
If your focus is on immersion in character and the participants subtly and seemingly naturally
maintain the believability of the setting and characters, that is an immersive RPG. If you focus on
pushing the games narrative relentlessly towards the most believable possible simulation or truest
conceivable emulation of some fictional world by frankly excessively detailed modelling which
distracts you from imagining the game-world, that is not an immersive RPG because by focusing on
believability to the extent of interrupting the imaginative process and flow of the game you
compromise the players in-character immersion. It may or may not be fair to characterise it as a
storygame where the focus of the story is on ultra-believability. It may just be a simulation.
Likewise if your focus is on immersion in character and the game subtly and seemingly naturally
goes in directions which fill you with a sense of fear and horror or of mystery and suspense, that is
an immersive RPG. If your focus is on constantly pushing the games events towards scenarios
which would fill your characters with fear, horror, mystery or suspense, but which dont necessarily
have any such effect on you as a player because you arent at least fairly consistently adopting your
characters point of view or identifying with your character, it is not an immersive RPG, but may be
an example of storygaming.
12
If the game focuses on scenarios associated with mystery, suspense, horror or fear but you have
knowledge as a player of the secrets of the game-world which your character would not logically
have and which prevents you from attaining a real sense of the unknown and therefore means that
you, the player, do not experience any sense of mystery, fear or suchlike in real life, that falls
woefully short of the aims of an immersive RPG. If as a player you are participating in making the
game-world up as you go along which serves as a blatant and constant reminder that there is no
pre-existing fleshed-out game-world and there are no pre-existing secrets to discover, you cannot
experience that sense of mystery or fear immersively. That may be a form of storygaming, but at
any rate doesnt fulfil the objectives of an immersive roleplaying game.
DISCLAIMER:- these examples and how they are presented may well be very deeply controversial.
The real point, and value, of in-character immersion is in heightening your experience of the game in
many varied and different ways which I will come on to soon in ways which depend on having the
game-world, the games events, your characters experiences and especially your character come
vividly alive for you. The point, and value, of narrative control is in the opportunity to guarantee that
the game achieves certain dynamic qualities and doesnt degenerate into bland aimlessness,
however acutely and immersively experienced. But immersive RPGs can guarantee those same
dynamic qualities very easily if even one participant, the referee, is actively, subtly and seemingly
naturally pushing the games events in interesting and dynamic directions (without railroading), even
if he does so subconsciously and by instinct rather than consciously and deliberately.
Storygames and immersive RPGs represent opposite ends of a spectrum of games, at one end
focusing on the shape (direction, course and pace) of the story, the in-game events or the gamenarrative (storygames) and at the other focusing on the experience of in-character immersion
(immersive RPGs). But each may have elements of the other, and a game could occupy any point
along that continuum from one extreme to the other. A halfway-house is certainly possible.
The competing elements of narrative influence and immersion are like Yin and Yang:- you can
scarcely have the one without the other emerging somewhere; you can even be dually conscious
of the two at once. In a storygame you are almost inevitably going to find yourself sympathising
with, even identifying with a particular character at a given moment which is at least a
rudimentary form of immersion. In an immersive RPG a story inevitably emerges which is
incidental to the game the verbalised story of events in the game-world. It is as much of a story as
anything which emerges from a storygame, even though it is only the ref who is telling the story in
any meaningful sense, and even if he does so largely by tacitly accepting what the players say.
Consciously or subconsciously the participants in an immersive RPG invariably use techniques, even
if they are very subtle and natural-seeming techniques adopted purely subconsciously, to drive the
events of the game forward. These techniques, in my view, and this is controversial in some
quarters, can be fairly characterised as techniques of story. Even something as simple as focusing on
the more interesting aspects of the events in the characters lives, such as a tense conversation in a
tavern, rather than on the mundane tedium of their bodily functions even something as trivial as
that is at bottom a narrative technique of the essence of storygaming, yet all immersive RPGs use it
and are much richer and more enjoyable for it.
It is obviously possible for some players to be storygaming while others are roleplaying immersively,
just as an individual player could be both to some extent storygaming and to some extent
roleplaying immersively at the same time. As will already have become clear, in the central case of
an immersive tabletop RPG the referee is essentially storygaming most of the time to facilitate the
players in-character immersion. When he adopts the role of a particular character the ref may be
13
roleplaying immersively, but when he controls the game-world globally he is, in my view, clearly
storygaming. Again, this is likely to be controversial. Its amazing how worked up people can get over
these distinctions. The point is though that storygaming and in-character immersion co-exist happily.
Just as storygames and immersive RPGs are at opposite ends of one spectrum, tabletop RPGs and
LARPs are at opposite ends of another spectrum, at one end being played out by illocutionary acts
(verbal election) and often, sadly, indirect speech, at the other by demonstrative action and almost
always direct speech. But again each may have elements of the other, and a game could occupy any
point along that continuum from one extreme to the other. A halfway-house is definitely possible.
You can legitimately use elements of demonstrative physical action when youre playing Souls
Calling, just like a LARPer. Direct speech is specifically adopted as the norm, just like in LARP. Souls
Callings mechanics also subtly push the events of the game in dynamic directions, a technique of
or similar to storygaming, but these mechanics are light-touch with the objective of enhancing the
experience of immersive play, not focusing on abstractly creating a game-narrative with particular
qualities. For these reasons Souls Calling is resolutely an immersive RPG and not a storygame.
THE CENTRAL CASE OF AN IMMERSIVE TABLETOP RPG
In the central case of an immersive tabletop RPG one of you, the referee (shortened to ref), is
the ultimate arbiter of in-game truth, the final authority on what does or doesnt happen in the
game-world. His powers over the game-world and the characters within it, and over the games
events as a whole, are classically said to be little short of godlike. He sets the scene, describes wider
events and takes the part of most of the characters, namely the non-player characters (NPCs).
When the ref controls the games events, even simply by setting the scene, without immersing
himself in the perspective of a particular character, he is in effect storygaming. (Shh!)
Many games call the ref the Gamesmaster or GM. I prefer the term ref simply because it is a term
in ordinary use in plain English which means someone who is the arbiter of what can and cant
happen in a game the person who is in charge of the game. It also happens to be the term first
used in the hobby. Why use invented jargon when ordinary words will do? Of course the refs role in
an RPG goes beyond simply deciding what the rules do and dont allow. He has enormous creative
input into the game, often far beyond that of any other single participant. A roleplaying game lives
or dies by the quality of its reffing. But in a Napoleonic tabletop wargame the referee might be the
one who sets up the terrain and decides who has which army units to command. That is creative
input but we can naturally speak of the person who gives it as the referee. The ref decides the
parameters of the game. It is the same, albeit perhaps often to a greater extent, in immersive RPGs.
In the central case of an immersive tabletop RPG the players, meaning the other real-world
participants, that is to say, apart from the ref, each take ownership of one of the principal
protagonists, a player character (PC). The game explores the events of the player characters
adventures, quests, travels and personal journeys. The main focus is always on them, on their
personal experience of the world and especially (for the players) on their experience of the games
events, with each player identifying strongly with his PC.
Some games share the refs function among the players. That can often be very bad for immersion
simply because reffing requires you to step apart from your character and see things from a global
point of view, which more or less by definition means a retreat, however brief, from in-character
immersion. The very fact that in games where the refs function is shared out the players have
significant general narrative authority also makes the players blatantly conscious of the fact that
there is no pre-existing, fleshed-out game-world in any real sense. The ever-present stark reminder
14
that the game-world is being made up as you go along can in turn mess up some of the key
experiences that immersive play can lead to, such as creating a sense of the unknown and of
mystery, suspense and fear. Just as pure wargames often dont need a ref at all, shared narrative
authority works perfectly well for those storygames which focus on creating an intriguing gamenarrative, which can be done abstractly and without deep immersion. For immersive RPGs avoid.
Some roleplaying groups might have more than one ref. Thats fine, optimal even, in LARPs where
you have lots of players and they physically act out the part of their characters, but tabletop RPGs
are played in small groups. The time-honoured tradition of having a single ref is tried and tested, and
it works. Its simply the optimum for small groups for immersive play, with rare exceptions. Why
have more than one person in effect be forced to storygame for the benefit of the others and break
his own in-character immersion when, logistically speaking, you dont have to? Why go to the
trouble of reffing the game and foregoing in-character immersion if youre going to be hampered in
your control of the game-world by having to share your reffing role with others in an already small
group? Too many cooks spoil the broth. For storygames it may be fine to have multiple refs, but
thats because disrupted immersion is not an issue for storygaming in-character immersion isnt
the storygamers aim. For immersive RPGs its a huge issue the issue to end all issues, even.
Some refs let their players take ownership of more than one player character at once. That can often
be very bad for immersion in character, simply because it requires you to switch away from one
characters point of view to play the other, so its not to be recommended, even for experienced
roleplayers. Extra characters for the one player are basically just a distraction, and if one player has
them, the others may feel pressured to have them too, to get the same amount of spotlight time.
Having multiple characters for each player works perfectly well for storygames and for a hack-n-slash
wargame where you may have hirelings, or entire armies, but for immersive RPGs avoid.
RPGs are driven by the players choices in reacting to the game-world which in the central case of an
immersive RPG its mainly the refs job to conjure up. If the ref by exercising overbearing control to
keep the game on track negates and nullifies the players choices at every opportunity and they have
the feeling of being railroaded into event after event, the players will struggle to develop a sense of
ownership of their characters. Their experience of the game will then be very poor as a result. Avoid.
Immersion critically depends on the suspension of disbelief and by that same token on the
believability of the game, but immersive roleplaying games generally work best when they are
dynamic, embracing tough challenges and poignant personal themes for your PCs and stoking realworld sensations among the players themselves of mystery, suspense, intrigue, discovery,
excitement, tragedy, horror, triumph and so on. Part of the refs core job is to subtly push the game
in these directions, even if some refs do so mainly by the way they set up the game before play
begins, and after that only by their subconscious, instinctive choices. The players always need
something to do. Immersive play can so easily wither on the vine if it becomes aimless and
directionless. Keeping players busy while they immerse is one of the refs key preoccupations
frankly, it can often be simply a question of distracting the players from their own navels, and many
RPGs revert to a default mode of hack-n-slash simply because combat is the easiest way for the ref
to provide that distraction, in the absence of some frankly more imaginative and less repetitive
alternative (though that is not a criticism of those gamers whose positive preference is for constant
combat, but only, at most, of those gaming groups who would really rather think of something else,
but rarely manage to).
The players can push the game in dynamic directions too through their choice of how their
characters act, even if when they do so consciously they are stepping away from their in-character
immersion and in effect, in some minor respects, briefly storygaming. In fact, modest amounts of
15
player input of this kind should be encouraged, in moderation. But whenever the players step apart
from their characters to lend some dynamic element to the game in this way, by stepping away from
their characters perspectives they may weaken their sense of immersion going forward and lessen
their experience of the game as a whole so dont overdo it. That said, it can help to have rules
which incentivise some element of that sort of thinking or behaviour and directly, though lightly,
encourage the players to push the events of the game in more dynamic and interesting directions.
In Souls Calling your choices as a player are often led by your characters Tendencies (moral
outlook, behavioural tendencies and so on). That can be seen as purely immersive roleplaying, but
set up to lend dynamism and direction to the game. Your choice of how your character acts is also
driven by your own consciously adopted stance as a player party-constructive (generally helpful
to the other players), conniving (conspiratorial) or mixed and may be influenced by your
characters Souls Calling. That could be said to be a (limited and minor) element of storygaming.
WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY AN IMMERSIVE TABLETOP RPG
Typically for an immersive tabletop RPG you need whatever dice, cards or other randomisers the
game uses as well as writing materials, including character sheets to write the details of the player
characters on. Obviously someone needs to have a copy of the rules, and you may want to have
summary sheets and so forth to refer to during play. You may wish to have snacks and drinks ready.
Miniature figurines are often a popular tool to use to represent characters in combat and similar
situations. Traditional immersive tabletop RPGs dont generally use boards but they may use tables
as playing surfaces. Some roleplaying games make use of tokens such as poker chips, costume gems
and suchlike. Tabletop roleplayers generally dont play in costume in the way LARPers do.
To play Souls Calling you need:- lots of twelve-sided dice (d12s) ideally four or more per
player; pens, pencils, erasers and paper; lots of tokens of five different kinds (for instance costume
gems of five colours); blank character sheets (see at the back of this book); friends. You can buy
polyhedral dice (including d12s) from gaming retailers support your friendly local gaming store!
It can help to have miniature figurines to represent the characters of the game in combat, a
surface such as a tabletop to place them on and a ruler or tape-measure to check distances.
If the miniatures are about an inch high for ordinary humans you can use a scale of one inch on the
tabletop to two yards in the game-world. Gaming retailers often sell appropriate miniature
figurines. Ideally you should have a table even if you dont use figurines both to place your hand
on when youre speaking as your character, and simply to have a nice flat surface to write on.
Mass combat situations are often perfect for miniature figurines. It might even make sense for the
ref to delegate temporary control of whole units of non-player characters to the players, at any rate
if those troops are the player characters allies, while the game temporarily resembles a wargame
(though this is counter-immersive). As ref you can always intervene and retake control of the NPCs if
you think that, for instance under pressure and out of fear, or purely out of confusion (the fog of
war), they are likely to start acting purely in their own interests rather than in the player characters.
Be aware that, like delegating control of NPCs, using miniatures can detract from the players sense
of in-character immersion. When you focus on moving a figurine around on a table, that may take
your focus away from an experiential in-character point of view. This makes it desirable to generally
confine the use of miniature figurines to large fights where it is difficult to keep track of where
everyone is at once.
16
One technique for handling combat might be for the ref to keep a detailed diagram of where the
characters are but without showing it to the players, instead describing each characters perspective
on the fight. But that may be inconvenient and time-consuming, and there is nothing wrong, it
seems to me, with the occasional use of miniature figurines, provided that you dont overdo it.
THE REF AND THE RULES IN IMMERSIVE TABLETOP RPGS
The rules of an immersive tabletop RPG are usually bendable:- the ref is strictly above the rules.
What he says goes. He is in overall charge of your game. To some extent he will want to stick to the
rules to keep the game credible, but he can interpret, apply and change the rules as he sees fit.
Many things are not covered by the strict rules of the game. On such matters the referee adjudicates
entirely in his discretion. By way of general advice, though, the ref should stick to the spirit of the
rules, supplemented by common sense, unless he has good reason not to. He should also avoid
taking the game in directions which are socially unacceptable, such as focusing inappropriately on
sexual activity of any kind.
In Souls Calling the ref has the final say on the rules at all times, but of
course he must act within the bounds of general social acceptability.
THE POINT OF PLAYING AN IMMERSIVE RPG KEY EXPERIENCES OF PLAY

This section is very specifically a commentary on immersive roleplay only (and not on storygaming or
wargaming), though it may be of some assistance in understanding other kinds of games.
At no point do you commonly say that one player has definitively won at an immersive RPG. There
may be small victories as quests are completed and personal goals achieved, but that is not the
overarching aim of the game. The point of immersive tabletop roleplaying is simply to have fun, and
ideally rich and varied experiences of play, following the exploits and personal journeys of the PCs.
You explore the imaginary game-world through their eyes, throwing yourself into a believable
alternate reality which facilitates the suspension of your disbelief. You strategize your way past
hurdles and obstacles. You weigh up your characters personal dilemmas and savour their poignancy.
You experience the sense of mystery, suspense and discovery which the gradual unfolding of
complex events and unravelling of devious intrigue can give. You experience sensations of triumph,
tragedy, fear and horror. The point of roleplaying immersively is to heighten these experiences for
you as a player. Adopting your characters perspective, internalising his viewpoint and his experience
of the game-world, imagining being him and immersing in character in the sense of identifying with
your character generally speaking heightens your experience of the game-world and game-narrative
as a whole and helps you to internalise them and feel them come alive for you as if they were real.
People play and enjoy RPGs for all sorts of reasons, which we can call key experiences of play:
the excitement of a challenge such as battling foes, solving puzzles and finding treasure;
the poignancy of themes generally revolving around the characters personal dilemmas;
the real-world experience of a sense of mystery, suspense, intrigue or discovery;
the real-world experience of sensations such as triumph, tragedy, fear and horror;
conviviality arising out of the shared diversion of the game, and comedy.
17
Many of these key experiences of play depend on or can be enhanced by the essential constituents
of immersive roleplay:
a deep level of engagement with the game-world and events of the game, and in particular
immersion in character, which in turn depends on:o
adopting the characters point of view except when you have a good reason not to;
the suspension of disbelief, which in turn depends on believability;
a sense of ownership of your character, of having a stake in him, which can be

destroyed if you feel deprived of player impact on the games events, in particular:
if you feel railroaded (railroading is where the ref doesnt allow the players
any sense of control over their characters lives, often out of a misconceived
idea of how to spice up the game; constantly fudging dice-rolls and even
constantly rolling dice in secret when theres no particular reason to, and
so-called illusionism, can be a part of this problem) you need real choice;
that is not to say that you necessarily cant roleplay immersively within
known story arcs as for instance if you play out Arthurian legend knowing
that King Arthur will draw Excalibur from the stone relative rather than
absolute player impact may suffice for your immersive roleplay, and it tends
to take particularly heavy railroading to destroy immersion completely;
if you are not given enough meaningful information about the game-world,
as background information at the beginning of the game or as general
current affairs occurring during the game, for you to be able to make
interesting choices which have a real impact on the game-world or on the
course that the game takes there can be no choice without knowledge;
descriptive engagement with the game-world and the games events as a way of
helping you to internalise the game-world and heightening your immersion;
smooth flow of play which in turn depends on ease of play.
Immersion may be assisted by anchoring/reification in the sense I have already explained (namely
that if the rules or conventions of the game give tangible and perceptible impact to certain qualities
that your character has, those qualities will then feel more real, and that makes the character himself
feel more real too).
Certain key experiences of immersive play also depend on other key elements of play, especially:
a sense of the unknown, which in turn requires the sense of an actual pre-existing world;
an unpredictable pattern of excitement, discovery and triumphs the rewards of play.
MAKE SURE EVERYONE TAKES HEALTHY BREAKS FROM THE GAME. OBSESSION OR ADDICTION IS NOT THE AIM.
Playing the part of the entertainer, though a great source of enjoyment of immersive RPGs for many
people, is really an element of storygame. That can include deliberately over-the-top roleplay or
any instance of pretending to be your character if you are not also at least imagining being him.
18
Through immersion some people feel their characters taking on a life of their own to such an extent
that they seem to feel the key experiences of play through their characters, as if the character were
a real individual. Even for most immersive roleplayers, though, these key experiences of play may be
equally satisfying whether they are experiences that their characters would logically share or
experiences which on a true analysis depend to some extent on the players out-of-character
knowledge or personality and as such are logically unique to the player and are not shared with the
character. For instance, if you are playing an immersive RPG with a horror theme, your out-ofcharacter anticipation of the unknown horror to come may lead you to feel a developing sense of
fear and horror before your character would have any notion of the impending menace.
These key experiences of play and other key elements can be confluent flowing together, acting as
catalysts for each other. Your sense of excitement at a challenge and your sense of triumph, tragedy,
fear or horror can depend on how deeply you have taken ownership of your PC. Your sense of
ownership of a PC can be fuelled by deep engagement with the game, and also by exploring his
personal dilemmas. An element of mystery can be a key ingredient in the challenges and dilemmas
you face. The sense of the unknown, which is closely related to the sense of mystery, can be critical
to sensations of fear and horror. A good game helps conviviality, and vice versa. The sense of
challenge, real or illusory, is critical to a sense of triumph when you eventually succeed.
ONE-TRICK PONIES AND NARROW GAMING EXPERIENCES THE MUNCHKIN AND THE BLINKERED PURIST (RANT)
Preferring a particular key experience of play can also get in the way of the others. The most widely
and vociferously lamented example of this is the munchkin of urban legend, a player so fixated on
the sensation of triumph that he is willing to do virtually anything to win. He doesnt care if his stats
make any kind of sense, as long as they are the most effective stats he can get, so he will downgrade
or dump-stat the stats he feels are unimportant and ramp up the stats he feels he can get the
most juice out of as much as possible, regardless of believability that is called min-maxing. He
doesnt care if his characters actions are believable, as long as they mean he comes out on top. He
subverts the challenges of the game by metagaming his way around them, tramples on the
believability of the game which is critical to the players immersion, ignores poignant themes and
always has his eye on the main prize. He may well even blatantly cheat. Many roleplayers think they
have met munchkins. The truth is that the utterly incorrigible and irredeemable munchkin is basically
a myth, but most players probably have a little tiny bit of munchkin in them if they are completely
honest. Yes, that includes you! You might well think that it includes me too. And who am I to argue?
The munchkin in you may be less likely to rear his ugly head when you have lots of recent experience
of playing numerous characters, quite possibly in a variety of entirely different RPGs. Playing a
number of different characters helps to maintain a sense of perspective. It is important to have a
sense of ownership of your characters and a stake in them, but munchkinism sometimes happens
when you have too much of a stake in your character and are unwilling to contemplate that anything
bad might befall him, to the point of forgetting that the game is there for other peoples enjoyment
too. Thats obviously unhealthy. So get yourself involved in a variety of ongoing games if you can.
The munchkin in you is also less likely to rear his ugly head if the game you are playing involves a lot
of general interactive roleplaying, poignant themes, mystery, intrigue, suspense, fear, horror and
tragedy, or at least the excitement of challenges which bear little relation to the characters stats.
Conversely, in hack-n-slash games which consist of fight after fight with the occasional treasure
grab, whether they are meant as immersive RPGs or openly intended as wargames, the characters
stats can become overwhelmingly important. As a ref, if you let your games descend into perpetual
hack-n-slash wargaming with no other distractions, you are simply inviting the worst kind of
munchkinism and tantrum-throwing from any immature players. You only have yourself to blame.
19
But munchkins are not the only kind of players to be fixated on one of the key experiences of play to
the detriment of the others. On the fringes of the storygames hobby a minority of people really do
sincerely hold (and vociferously express) what is in effect the nonsense opinion that you can only
achieve one or two of the key experiences of play at a time, and that deliberately embracing several
at once is an incoherent endeavour. They often in effect deny that certain particular key experiences
of play, such as mystery and suspense, are worthy of separate consideration at all, and frame their
discussion of the storygames and roleplaying hobbies in terms which preclude adequate analysis of
immersion in character. They may prefer to focus relentlessly on their PCs personal dilemmas and
similar themes, or on the excitement of a challenge, and thats perfectly well and good, but they can
be openly and wantonly hostile to any element of the game which is clearly meant to go out on a
limb to maintain the games believability, increase descriptive engagement with the game-world or
otherwise bolster immersion and the suspension of disbelief. Thats when they are blinkered purists.
Now, clearly, spending a lot of time on building up the games believability (which when done to
excess can even be counter-immersive), engaging with the game-world descriptively and bolstering
immersion and the suspension of disbelief could leave less time to spend exploring personal
dilemmas, engaging with challenges or telling a punchy story. But its plainly poppycock to think that
you cant pursue several key experiences of play at once. Many, many roleplayers do so all the time,
and have great fun. Their actual experience of play is more valid and important than any theory
which seeks to deny it. Plainly, enhancing the suspension of your disbelief and heightening your
immersion can help you develop a greater sense of ownership of your character which can make the
poignancy of his personal dilemmas and the excitement of challenges really come alive for you.
Working on the believability of the game (in moderation) can be very helpful from this point of view.
Its also poppycock to think, as a fringe minority apparently do, that any given player will always tend
to strive for the same key experience of play. The key experience of play which I personally find most
interesting is the real-world sense of mystery, suspense, intrigue and discovery, but I wholeheartedly
embrace and enjoy all the ones I have listed, often several at once. A single choice that you make as
ref or as a player can be meant to achieve any number of outcomes of play. They can all help to fuel
each other. Sometimes they do run contrary to each other, but its worth taking the risk of that for
the sake of the rich and varied range of experiences which immersive roleplay can offer. Blinkered
purists deny themselves and others that diversity of play; they may ruin their own fun, and yours. If
your roleplaying style only allows you to enjoy one of the key experiences of immersive roleplay, you
are at risk of impoverishing your experience of roleplaying and that of those you play with. If thats
really how you enjoy playing, then play that way but it may be fun to sometimes try other things.
Part of the reason why fringe storygamers sometimes hold odd views of this kind appears to be
that some of their theories of roleplaying have been built around treating roleplaying as an
externally observable phenomenon. They ask themselves how roleplayers behave and what shape
their games take. They ask themselves what kinds of play lead to a game-narrative with interesting
qualities of story. The roleplayer is like a rat in a scientists laboratory and his behaviour is judged
on what passes for empirical evidence. This whole approach rather misses the point that what you
are trying to understand is a human leisure activity to understand what people really enjoy about
roleplay, you have to adopt an internal perspective, based not on externally observable
behaviours, but on empathy and self-reported experiences of play. What is interesting about
roleplay is not how roleplayers behave, but how they feel inside. In other words, the scientist
always has to remember that he is in fact one of the rats, and has an unparalleled intuitive
resource to help him in understanding them his own direct, subjective experience of his own ratbrain. Any attempt to understand roleplay which rejects that basic approach is doomed to produce
only a hollow, empty description of the process of roleplay and the game-narratives which emerge
from it, and nothing of any use about the true purpose and meaning of the game to the players.
20
IMMERSION AS A VEHICLE TO THE KEY EXPERIENCES OF PLAY

What follows concerns immersive RPGs only. We now leave other kinds of game behind.
Most of the key experiences of immersive roleplay either depend directly on your immersion in
character or at least on your sense of the vividness of the fiction of the game (mystery, suspense,
intrigue and discovery; triumph, tragedy, fear and horror) or are at least heightened by a sense of incharacter immersion (the poignancy of personal dilemmas; the excitement of challenges).
Immersion depends on the suspension of disbelief, which requires the game-world and in-game
events to be believable, and immersion also depends on descriptive engagement with the gameworld. This emphasis on descriptive engagement means that, at least as ref, you should pepper your
in-game patter with descriptive details which may be of no inherent importance in themselves. The
ref spends time telling the players about the weather, the clothing of those around them, the details
of the architecture of buildings and so forth not because it has any immediate significance to the
events unfolding within the game but simply in order to make the game-world come alive for you.
Your sense of the vividness of the games events as a whole is also helped by you adopting the point
of view of your character as much as possible and identifying with him. Immersion in character will
help the game-world to come alive for you. Think about your characters views and feelings during
the game. Sometimes you may want to step apart from your characters point of view and it can be
perfectly sensible to do so. You might choose to have your character act in a particular way not
simply because that strikes you as the most natural way for him to act but because you think that if
he does a particular thing it will make the game more fun for someone else, or because you think it
will lead to an opportunity for the exploration of poignant themes, or for the excitement of a
challenge. For instance, you might have your character pick a fight because you want the excitement
of battle. Personally I have had a character of mine back down from a fight with another player
character, really stretching the bounds of believability to do so, simply for the sake of the other
players enjoyment. I wouldnt always do that, but it was something of a special case. When you do
this kind of thing, frankly you are essentially storygaming rather than roleplaying immersively, but
within limited bounds its not terribly counter-immersive. The litmus test is:- are you ruining the
believability of the game to such an extent as to trample on other players immersion? If so, avoid.
But keep in mind that the moment that you step apart from your characters perspective and start
adopting the global point of view inherent in storygaming in this manner, you are, at least
momentarily, stepping away from in-character immersion, and often weakening your sense of the
vividness of the games fiction. Sometimes it has to be done. Sometimes the rules of a game even
give it limited encouragement. But you should be swiftly back in your characters shoes if you want
to retain your sense of in-character immersion and let it grow. As your sense of immersion will be
critical to your enjoyment of several of the key experiences of play, that is highly recommended.
Souls Calling lets you use fate tokens and luck tokens in ways which have nothing to do with your
characters point of view of the game-world. You have limited narrative input into the game,
filtered through the ref. This I consider a desirable part of the game because it makes the game
more dynamic and interesting. If you prefer, you can let the ref take care of these tokens for you.
That way you dont have to adopt a global perspective which might hamper your immersion.
Assuming you keep hold of your own fate tokens and luck tokens, you still dont have direct,
unfiltered narrative input into the game. The ref always has the final say. To have it otherwise
could jeopardise your sense of the unknown and your potential experience of mystery, suspense,
intrigue, discovery, horror, fear and, potentially, the excitement of challenge. It could also require
you to step more starkly away from your characters point of view and adopt a global perspective
so that your narrative input doesnt ruin the game. So Souls Calling filters player input.
21
Although in the central case of an immersive tabletop roleplaying game it is primarily the refs job to
sprinkle his narrative with descriptive detail, as a player you can also do so to the limited extent of
your natural input. For instance, the ref may be happy for you to go into detail describing your
characters clothing and general appearance without having to ask the ref about those details or
clear them with him first. You wont have general narrative power in the way the ref does for
instance, generally speaking you cant simply narrate the fact that your character has a critical item
of equipment which was never spoken of before, or has some key ally or contact who just happens
to be pivotal to the quest that you now need to complete. Having that sort of narrative power during
play itself would have negative implications for several of the key experiences of play (especially for
the sense of mystery, suspense and fear, which all draw on the sense of the unknown, and for the
excitement of challenge). It would also require you to step apart from your characters point of view
to consider the games events globally and dampen your immersion in your character for sure, and
weaken the vividness of the games fiction for you. But cosmetic details personal to your character
are generally within your remit as a player. Having said that, dont overdo it. Thinking creatively in
this way can be counter-immersive. Primarily, just focus on your characters views and feelings.
These comments, of course, are confined to immersive RPGs. For storygames where the focus may
be, for instance, purely on abstractly creating an interesting story, rather than on immersing oneself
in a particular character with all the experiences that that entails or even on having the games
fiction seem vividly real to you, shared narrative control is perfectly fine. Deep in-character
immersion is not on the cards in that kind of game anyway, so you arent really losing anything.
Another thing that a player can helpfully do in immersive RPGs is to prompt the ref to give more by
way of descriptive detail, for instance by asking about the weather or the details of plants in a forest
that the PCs are walking through. Try to be subtle so you dont offend the ref by implying too
blatantly that he hasnt spent enough time on descriptive engagement with these sorts of things!
One more thing to remember is that whilst attention to descriptive detail can be really good for the
players sense of immersion, theres a balance to be struck. Dont descend to a level of tedium or
people may lose interest and the opportunity to achieve some of the key experiences of play may be
compromised. You will learn by trial and error where the balance lies best for you and your players.
By way of practical advice, to heighten peoples sense of immersion: as ref, keep the game-world and in-game events to at least a basic standard of believability;
as ref or player, keep the characters actions to at least a basic standard of believability;
as ref, spend time on descriptive detail and ensure the players get meaningful information;
prompt the ref to give more descriptive detail; prompt players to talk about their PCs views;
adopt the point of view of any character you play unless you have a good reason not to;
dont overdo descriptive engagement to the level of tedium; dont obliterate player impact.
IMMEDIATE EXCITEMENT AT THE OUTSET OF PLAY, UNPREDICTABILITY AND CRESCENDO
A totally new game or campaign (that is, series of linked game-sessions) should probably always
quickly offer high excitement, a feeling of glory, an atmosphere of triumph or a sense of wondrous
discovery but that should then give way to a sense of restraint, leading to challenges, discoveries
and triumphs at an unpredictable pace. This happens in cycles. Overdo these things and you
undermine their climactic or compelling feel. You wouldnt expect a Beethoven symphony to
maintain one constant level of tempo or volume, even if it starts with a punch. Im not by any means
trying to say that an RPG played for fun is any kind of a match for a Beethoven symphony in terms of
artistic merit far from it. But the crescendo is a stratagem common to both. Start with a punchy
moment of glory, discovery or excitement, let it fade then explore an unpredictable crescendo.
22
THE EXCITEMENT OF CHALLENGE AS A KEY EXPERIENCE OF PLAY

An easy way to lend a little dynamism to an RPG is to add in some kind of challenge. A hostile enemy
is the commonest example, but it neednt be combat. There can be puzzles to solve, investigations
to crack, treasure to find, reluctant allies to persuade and intrigue to engage in. The excitement of
challenge is one of the key ingredients to roleplaying for most players. Never underestimate it. On
the other hand, there is so much more to the experience of playing an RPG than fight after fight with
the occasional trap or treasure hoard to stumble across, or even more cerebral puzzles. Take time to
explore other key experiences of play and heighten your in-character immersion and your sense of
ownership of your character will grow. The greater your sense of ownership of your character, the
more you have at stake when challenges arise and the more exciting they can be for you.
POIGNANT THEMES AS A KEY EXPERIENCE OF PLAY
To thine own self be true but what will you sacrifice for the sake of your characters personal
beliefs? How far will you take things to win, or just to survive?
How far are you willing to go to answer your Souls Calling? How far will you take your Tendencies?
These sorts of questions can lead to really poignant themes which can add a tremendous dynamic to
your roleplaying experience. The example of play given earlier is intended to illustrate that sort of
dilemma. Under threat of the consequences of breaching the Shrouding, will Callan find the courage
to show mercy to the bandit whom he has let witness the secrets of the occult?
Souls Calling has rules on Tendencies and on Souls Ties stats which give you a special impetus to
think carefully about your characters priorities as they currently stand (his Tendencies) and how
they might evolve as he grows in power and in his importance to the cosmos as a whole (Souls
Ties). Answering your Souls Calling (and gaining a point in the Souls Ties stat which fits it) may
represent the beginnings of a shift in your characters Tendencies to align themselves more closely
with the ideals of his Souls Calling. Naturally your characters Tendencies can change during play.
Clearly, many gaming groups on the fringes of the hobby, especially among the storygamers,
concentrate on poignant themes almost to the exclusion of anything else. If that works for them,
great. But thats not what immersive RPGs are meant for. They embrace many goals at once.
My own take is that greater levels of immersion enhance your sense of ownership of your character.
The greater your sense of ownership of your character, the more you have at stake in his personal
dilemmas, and the more poignant they become. Of course, the very act of playing out these personal
themes can also enhance your sense of ownership of your character. So I cant say that you will
necessarily get more out of these poignant themes by concentrating on other key experiences of
play as well. Clearly, storygames do what they do well enough. But you may get just as much out of
your poignant themes and dilemmas by embracing other key experiences of play, focusing on
believability and appropriate descriptive engagement and heightening your sense of suspension of
disbelief and immersion so that when the time is right to expose some poignant dilemma or theme
to the spotlight you have the maximum possible sense of ownership of your character and a real
stake in his future. In other words, you may have to wait for your poignant themes and dilemmas to
surface, but it can be worth the wait. Try it.
Souls Calling is a game which strives for several key experiences of play at once. But I do feel very
strongly, from experience, that you can explore poignant themes at the same time as achieving all
sorts of other key experiences of play, and that is what Souls Calling is meant for.
23
A SENSE OF MYSTERY, SUSPENSE, INTRIGUE OR DISCOVERY AS A KEY EXPERIENCE OF PLAY

DISCLAIMER:- THIS SECTION IS NOT ABOUT MURDER MYSTERY GAMES. ITS NOT ABOUT PUZZLES OR DEFINED
INVESTIGATIONS. ITS NOT ABOUT WHODUNNITS. ITS NOT ABOUT THE CHALLENGE OF WHETHER YOU CAN CRACK
THE CRIME. FOR ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, SEE UNDER THE EXCITEMENT OF CHALLENGE (ABOVE). THIS
SECTION IS ABOUT SOMETHING RAW AND PRIMAL. ITS ABOUT CONJURING UP AN ATMOSPHERE OF MYSTERY AND
SUSPENSE, A SENSE OF A WORLD OF HIDDEN KNOWLEDGE JUST BEYOND YOUR GRASP. ITS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT
WONDERING WHAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. ITS ABOUT A SENSE OF THE UNKNOWN IN RELATION TO A PREEXISTING STATE OF AFFAIRS, BE IT THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED, THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERFOOT OR
THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PLANNED BY SOME THIRD PARTY OR PROPHESISED. ITS ABOUT KEEPING PEOPLE
WONDERING WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON, GRADUALLY LETTING THEM PIECE IT TOGETHER BIT BY BIT OR PIECING
IT TOGETHER FOR THEM. ITS ABOUT GIVING THEM THIS FEELING:- I STAND AT THE EDGE OF THE UNKNOWN.
The sense of mystery, suspense and eventual discovery that you can get as a player is an experiential
outcome of play, a real-world sensation which grows out of your approach to the game. It may be an
experience which derives solely from how your character would feel in a given situation, or it may
depend on out-of-character knowledge to some extent. Even for most immersive players, that
distinction is unimportant. What matters, though, is the impact of that sensation of mystery,
suspense or discovery on you, the way you personally experience it in the real world, because thats
what defines your enjoyment of that aspect of the game. The fact that your character might be likely
to be experiencing a sense of mystery, suspense or discovery is of little use if you the player have
been burdened with the sort of out-of-character knowledge (knowledge which your character does
not have) which means that you cant share that experience yourself, or if you have not developed
any sense of a fleshed-out pre-existing game-world so as to feel some sense of the unknown.
Conversely if your out-of-character knowledge leads you to feel a sense of mystery more keenly than
your character would perhaps because you begin to realise the significance of strange happenings
before your character logically would, and start wondering how various things are connected then
that sense of mystery and suspense can be a valuable experience of play even if your character
would have no inkling of it. So what matters is the sensation that you, the player, experience. It is
not a question of simply dryly simulating some experience which your character would logically be
having. Its a question of experiencing something for yourself. But that experience at least grows out
of a sense of the vividness of the game-world as a whole which in turn is fuelled by your immersion
in your character. Where your experience derives from how your character would feel, as it often
will, clearly your immersion in your character and your adoption of his perspective are paramount.
The sense of mystery and suspense grows out of a tangled web of information which the players can
only glimpse at, out of clues and tantalising partial revelations often interwoven with red herrings,
out of a mix of truths, half-truths and falsehoods. Its not about cracking a riddle or neatly defined
investigation. The revelations neednt be knitted together to form a coherent, consistent whole. The
way that the sense of mystery and suspense are built up is through fragments of information about
what has happened in the past, what is currently happening or what is prophesised or planned for
the future. The notion that the truth is out there is connected to the notion of a fleshed-out preexisting game-world with its own secrets. The sense of wonder as those secrets are unveiled bit by
bit is the core of mystery and suspense. A definite, discrete piece of factual information which the
players are trying to work out is almost the antithesis of this kind of messy cloud of hidden
knowledge. A fragmentary phantasmagoria is what youre aiming for a complex whole which is
greater than the sum of its parts. The revelation of the mystery, little by little, neednt fit any
narrative structure. Its not a question of writing a story about how the mystery is solved. Its about
an impressionistic technique for messing with the players heads and keeping them guessing and
wondering. Its about awakening within them a sharp sense of curiosity, wonder and astonishment.
24
To this end the hidden strands of information should not be neatly tied together into a single thread.
Mystery should be open-ended, expansive, even boundless. Do not lightly allow the well of wonders
to run dry, the depths of mystery to be plumbed entirely or its murky waters to be exhausted.
A similar sensation to that of mystery, suspense and eventual discovery can grow out of devious
intrigue and politicking which has you forever guessing where peoples allegiances lie, including
other peoples player characters. As long as you dont get too wound up about it, it can be great
fun. This is not a question simply of solving puzzles for the challenge of doing so, nor of simulating
some kind of investigation, and it has nothing to do with personal dilemmas or dramatic themes or
premises of that kind. Its a question of evoking your personal sensation of mystery, suspense,
intrigue or discovery in the real world. Its a question of how you, the player, experience the game,
even if you are tempted to think of those feelings as your characters feelings, not your own.
An investigation which you approach as a fair challenge and a puzzle to be solved could be
something you might crack straight away, with no gradual build-up of suspense, or it could simply
lack that special ingredient which keeps you wondering what youre going to find out next. It wont
then lead to a sense of mystery, suspense and discovery for you in the real world. It doesnt really
matter whether there is any challenge to the puzzle at all. Things need to unfold gradually, with
information drip-fed to you piece-by-piece, and made interesting, meaning that you feel you have
some kind of stake in the outcome. A sense of ownership of your character is very useful to this end.
Merely simulating an investigation is something you could do perfectly well within the parameters of
a different kind of game altogether, a game without a single ref but where all the players collectively
share what in a traditional immersive RPG is the refs narrative power. In a storygame of that kind
there is often no pre-existing game-world in any real sense because the players can in effect
retroactively narrate the contents of the game-world and they know that there is nothing set in
stone which is unknown to them. Absent the sense (real or illusory) of a fleshed-out pre-existing
game-world, you cant have that special sense of the unknown which comes with the gradual
discovery of the secrets of a fully-fledged pre-existing game-world. Without some sense of the
unknown, you cant experience the sense of mystery, suspense and discovery in the real world.
In short, focus on the players real-world feelings of mystery and suspense, not on a mere challenge
or dry simulation. Ideally the sense to be fostered is this:- I stand at the edge of the unknown.
By way of practical advice: be conscious, especially as ref, of the need to create the sense of a real pre-existing world;
work on your descriptive engagement with the game-world, and keep it believable;
as ref, keep some information secret at first, and feed it to the players piece by piece;
make sure the players feel they have some kind of a stake in the unfolding events dont
railroad them into event after event with no real sense of choice as to what happens.
As a player, you can contribute to other players fun by participating in devious intrigue which may
involve modest tension between the player characters. Always remember that you are doing this not
to score points against your fellow players, but to improve their enjoyment of the game by
inculcating that sense of intrigue, mystery and suspense in them, or perhaps to entertain the ref who
is putting so much effort into the game for you. Kudos to you for returning the favour.
Souls Calling has its different player stances party-constructive, conniving and mixed stance
precisely to encourage occasional devious behaviour by players thereby fostering intrigue, mystery
and suspense, while at the same time keeping players guessing because for all you know the
players you suspect of working against you might actually be adopting a party-constructive stance.
25
Mystery and suspense are the special province of immersive roleplaying games where the ref has
final, definitive narrative authority. In the kind of storygaming environment where players have truly
shared narrative control the players have, in effect, the power to retroactively narrate elements of
the game-world and the game-world is only cast in stone when someone narrates it. Thats fine if
what you want is to explore poignant themes and premises, or if you simply want a basic game of
hack-n-slash, but from the point of view of developing the sense of the unknown which depends in
turn on the sense (real or illusory) of a fully fleshed-out pre-existing game-world, its toxic. Without
that sense of the unknown there can be no developing sense of mystery and suspense of the kind I
am trying to describe here. Players who expect and demand control over the game-world and hate it
when the ref keeps secrets, perhaps because of bad experiences with overbearing refs these
players miss out on the opportunity for mystery, suspense and discovery. I would recommend that
they keep an open mind and they may find that, with a good ref who doesnt see himself as being in
competition with the players, there is a lot in this style of gaming which they can really enjoy.
The seeds of mystery, suspense and intrigue can be sown in the player characters backgrounds (if
written or adapted by the ref) as well as through the in-character discovery of information during
play. If a game draws to a natural close and you find that its underlying stream of intrigue and
hidden secrets has truly run its course, a full out-of-character debrief can be very satisfying for the
players, including information that their characters could never have discovered.
For me, mystery, suspense, intrigue and discovery are the most interesting of the key experiences of
immersive play. I think they are widely underrated. I hope my efforts help more people enjoy them.
Try them. But they are by no means the only key experiences of play. Variety is the spice of life.
Consider this as an example, adapted from one I originally posted on the RPGPundits excellent
website theRPGSite.com, of stages that a game might pass through and ask yourself what you would
be thinking, as a player, at each stage:1. "Sweet her song, sharp her claws, sleeping she lies on the oceans floor" - this is a vision you
receive in your dreams.
2. Superstitious peasants, grateful when your band of well-armed mercenary PCs chooses to
help them deal with some bandits, tell you of their other concerns, including that a cult of
strangely dressed men have been observed holding meetings in the forest.
3. News arrives:- the king died en route to a foreign city! Believed murdered!
4. Paid by the villagers to search the woods for evidence of wrongdoing, a mission you choose
to accept, you find a strange shrine in the woods. Inside is an artefact which bears an image of
a clawed, bulbous-headed monster. You choose to hand it over to the authorities.
5. You hear of and choose to visit a local priest known to be well-versed in witch-hunting and
tell him of your concerns. He tells you that Shevraigh is a clawed sea-beast. He prays for you.
6. A man approaches you as you wander by a river. He has obviously noticed that you are a
mercenary. He wants to sit down and talk to you about your dreams. He claims to be a
philosopher interested in a treatise on dreams, and says that the dreams of mercenaries are
interesting to him, and will fill a whole chapter. He offers you a golden ring as payment to hear
about your dreams and visions. You choose to accept and tell him your dreams.
7. You choose to try to pawn the signet ring. You are arrested and accused of high treason.
26
8. You choose to tell the authorities about the strange man.

9. The new king (son of the previous king) comes to question you personally. When you choose
to tell him about your dreams he looks very worried. He agrees to free you if you promise to
keep him informed, via a messenger, of all further dreams that you have and of your further
activities. You choose to agree.
10. You choose to track the man down who gave you the ring out of a sense of grievance that
he landed you in trouble. Under torture (which you choose to perform on him) he reveals that
he was hired to approach you by a group of cultists who gave him the ring in payment.
11. You choose to release the man and go in search of the cultists. You hear of a young girl who
was recently abducted (a side-distraction?).
12. You choose to track down the abductor. It turns out that he is the same man who gave you
the ring and whom you tortured. You choose to hand him over to the authorities.
13. It turns out the girl has been having strange dreams. In her dreams a clawed sea-creature
advances upon her. She believes that the creature is real, and was sending her the dreams.
14. You choose to track down the cultists you were originally looking for but you find that their
temple has already been destroyed. Local peasants say that heavily armoured men bearing
holy symbols have been searching the woods under a royal warrant. It seems they found the
cultists' temple a few days ago, before you had even a rough notion of where it might be.
15. Your own dreams of clawed demons get worse. You choose to tell the king's messenger.
16. An attractive young woman in common clothes but whom you take to be of noble birth
strikes up a conversation with you in a tavern. She seems to be trying to affect the "common
touch" and doing it pretty well but you can tell she is higher-born than she's giving away. You
are puzzled as to why someone so high-born would either disguise that fact or be interested in
you, but, chancing it, you choose to accept her as your companion as she is VERY attractive and
probably just wants her bit of rough. After all you're a very grizzly and manly mercenary, with a
big muscly chest.
17. You have a bad dream about the girl who was abducted. Taking it to be an omen you
choose to return to her village, only to find a lynch-mob about to hang her for alleged
witchcraft. You are sure she is innocent, and rescue her. Her parents are already dead, so you
choose to take her with you.
18. Overnight she disappears. No trace is found. You think you heard a muffled scream and
thought you were dreaming - or was it just a dream? But not your only dream. You woke
screaming in the early morning with dreams of a vengeful clawed sea-demon in your mind.
Your young woman companion looks shocked. It seems you have been speaking in your sleep as
you dreamt. You choose to reassure her it was just a nightmare and you are completely sane
and hate even the thought of demons with a passion.
19. Your attractive woman companion asks you to go back to the capital city with her as she
says she has business there. She suggests you inform the authorities of the girl's disappearance
and let them deal with it. She says the business deal is very lucrative and could involve high pay
for hired mercenaries. You choose to agree.
27
20. When you arrive in the city, you sense you are being watched and followed. You see
someone stalking you and choose to give chase. In his hurry to get away he climbs over a wall
and his holy symbol becomes detached. It is of high quality, the sort that only a high-ranking
priest would be likely to have.
21. Your young woman companion drops hints about marriage and asks if you would come
with her to a small and out-of-the-way church to meet a priest she particularly trusts. She says
she's always found him to be a good spiritual counsellor. You choose to agree.
22. You get a strange tingly feeling as the priest prays in the classical language of ancient times
in your presence. (Could that be subtle holy magic of some kind?) The priest looks worried.
23. You are arrested without explanation but treated very well. You notice that the guards are
exceptionally well armed and as an experienced warrior you can tell from their deportment and
the care they take of their weapons that they are trained warriors of at least reasonable ability.
They have that look in their eye of people who have seen death. Your young woman companion
was arrested with you. She is in the cell next to yours and she can speak to you directly. The
guards have delivered a small chest of her belongings into the cell with her.
Do you choose to try to escape?
Do you choose to remain in custody?
Do you choose to demand explanation?
Is there anything else you wish to do?
What do you think is going on?
If a group of heavily armed warriors bursts in to the king's prison to free another prisoner who
had arrived just the day before accused of stealing in broad daylight in the middle of town right
in front of the guard (but who made no effort to resist arrest) and if, noticing that you appear
to be an experienced mercenary, the warriors promise you a share of stolen loot if you join their
escape/rescue plan - do you choose to go with them? The young woman companion looks very
fearful of going with them but says nothing. WHY? Is it the fear that they might violate her
chastity - or something more particular?
The point of this somewhat rudimentary example is that you can draw many inferences, but
none of them are entirely clear:Shevraigh is influencing your dreams, but not exercising perfect control. The cultists are
her worshippers and they need you and your dreams for their rituals. The new King knows
of Shevraigh and her cult and has many people on the case; he initially freed you to see if
he could learn about the cult's activities from your reports. The young woman is the King's
agent. Or is she? The chest she has been given may contain weapons, even keys to escape
the cell. The priest who she took you to see secretly cast magic to determine the extent of
Shevraigh's influence over you. He's working for the King. He guessed the cult would want
to use you, so he had you arrested to protect you. The man who gave you the ring was a
cultist who had received a vision of you from Shevraigh. He was interested in your dreams
to assist the cult in their rituals. Under torture he kept enough of his wits about him not to
give himself away entirely. It was the cultists who murdered the previous king.
28
HORROR, FEAR, TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY AS KEY EXPERIENCES OF PLAY

Much of what has been said about generating a sense of mystery, suspense and discovery also
applies, for the same sorts of reasons, to creating a sense of horror and fear. Horror and fear can be
facilitated by the players level of immersion and his sense of the unknown. Fundamentally, they are
about making things scary and even frightening. Some players may have a limited tolerance for this
kind of thing make sure you know your players; dont overdo it and give them nightmares
Concentrating on descriptive details, a sense of the unknown and a gradual crescendo as the tension
mounts are good techniques for achieving these key experiences of play. You can also have things
reach a particularly satisfying moment of climactic horror or fear.
A sense of triumph or tragedy depends on the players sense of ownership of his character which
again depends on his level of immersion. A sense of triumph also depends on the players sense (real
or illusory) of challenge. So achieving this key experience of play is incidentally linked to the
excitement of challenge, another key experience of play (see above). But if it all goes wrong and the
player loses horribly, thats fine you can turn it into tragedy as a key experience of play instead!
Dont railroad the player characters by regularly depriving the players of any meaningful control over
wider events because you will rob the players of their sense of having a stake in their characters and
their feelings of triumph, tragedy, horror and fear will be left hollow. What can work quite well is a
written prelude to a new adventure which you can give the players beforehand, or individual
downtime feedback between adventures, which can give you the opportunity to move events
along in more interesting directions. The fact that you do so in written form may help lessen the
players feeling that they are being dictated to during the course of play itself, because the written
description that you hand out to the players, or to a particular player, doesnt have quite the same
feeling of being part of the process of actually playing the game. Rather, it takes on a sort of
preliminary character, so it seems ancillary and less significant. Downplaying the importance of these
pre-narrated episodes may make it seem less like railroading and more like a convenient
introduction to the next part of a series of adventures. You are also being honest and upfront, so the
players may be less quick to wrongly suspect you of secretly railroading them at other times.
You can also evoke a sense of tragedy through the events which befall NPCs, if the players develop a
sense of attachment to them. That again depends on immersion, and on the focus on that NPC.
Closely related to the sense of triumph are sensations such as achievement, glory, belligerence and
power which players may enjoy through immersive roleplay. In a way these can be characterised as
sub-species of triumph. Suppose a player feels that he is bringing it on as his character leads a vast
army to war upon the culmination of his machinations to gather that force together, or dominates a
council chamber through commanding discourse:- the player can feel his characters power and
pugnacity coursing through his veins; that feeling is essentially one of triumph, or akin to triumph.
CONVIVIALITY AND COMEDY AS KEY EXPERIENCES OF PLAY
Roleplaying is a social hobby. For many gamers, light to medium immersion and generous
conviviality, perhaps sprinkled with the occasional moment of comedy, are perfectly sufficient for
their enjoyment of the game. Personally I recommend a dynamic game which has at least some level
of the excitement of challenge and preferably also the poignancy of personal dilemmas, a real-world
sense of mystery, suspense, intrigue and discovery and a real-world sense of horror, fear, triumph,
tragedy or suchlike. The more dynamic your game, the more enjoyable it will be for psychologically
committed gamers, and that can feed into greater conviviality among the players around the table.
29
It is, of course, important for players especially when some consciously adopt a conniving or mixed
stance to remember that in-game tensions between the characters dont represent out-of-game
tensions between the players. The intrigue that a conniving player indulges in should generally be
intended to enhance the other players enjoyment by making the game more interesting, even if
they may not immediately be particularly happy with some of the outcomes of it. Even at the very
moment when one player outplays another or his character achieves some moment of victory over
another PC, the triumphant player should probably be thinking of how to make the game more
enjoyable for the loser (and vice versa), even if thats an element of storygaming. Conniving play of
this kind should certainly never descend into ill-humoured point-scoring. You may have to offer each
other reassurances of good intent from time to time (but be careful not to do so patronisingly).
Dont go overdoing the comedy if its going to trample on other peoples levels of immersion, but if
even Shakespeares tragedies had comic relief (and roleplaying games do not by any means compare
with Shakespeare for artistic merit), then who is to say that it has no place at all in a generally far
lighter endeavour? Having said that, be aware that jarring comedy can break other players sense of
immersion. No dead parrot sketches during the game, please. Unless it really is a game about dead
parrots, or a game of pure silliness. And in most instances, thats unlikely.
PLAYER ROLEPLAY AUTONOMY IN GENERAL
To keep players immersed in their characters and your game, you have to let them have an impact
on the course of events within the game. Maintaining player impact is not enough in itself to make a
great game, but you simply must allow a reasonable level of player impact. This means not dictating
to players and not consistently negating their choices by way of railroading. It also means ensuring
they have reasonable information about the game-world.
In an immersive roleplaying game, players generally speaking have near-total autonomy in deciding
how their characters act, while they have free will. Its not good even to question their roleplay, let
alone to criticise it or, worst of all, intervene as ref and simply dictate that the character doesnt do
X, Y and Z but does A, B or C instead. It can wreck the players sense of ownership of his character
and hence his immersion. Most players can be trusted to roleplay maturely in good faith, and two
reasonable people (say, the ref and a player) may hold very different views on how a particular
character might believably act, or how his personality and ethics might evolve over time.
Consider how questioning, criticising or overruling player roleplay decisions can impact on the player
and the group. The ref tends to have an institutionalised role as the most vocal member of the group
while he is reffing and a natural position of authority. A player may feel excluded or undervalued
both by the ref and by extension by the group if he feels that his roleplaying is coming under fire.
Those new to roleplaying could become disheartened, lose confidence and leave the hobby
altogether. Hardcore roleplayers may take the view that the criticism is groundless and
wrongheaded or even downright offensive. They wont be impressed and might quit the group. If
you get to the point of criticising a players roleplay, youve already made the decision that the game
is suffering because if it wasnt already, it probably will be once youve aired your grievance.
If you are tempted, as ref, to overrule, criticise or even simply question a players roleplay, always be
open to the idea that however unlikely it may seem, you might well be the one who is wrong. The
players concept of his character may be more complex and interesting than you think, and you may
be ignoring facets of it in judging his roleplay. Likewise, as a player, before you criticise how other
people roleplay (including the ref), remind yourself that you dont necessarily know everything that
they know about the game or about the character they are playing. They may have a perfectly good
reason for roleplaying as they do which they cant share with you without spoiling the game.
30
Having said all that, there is always the possibility for an extreme case. Player roleplay autonomy is
not ultimately sacrosanct and absolute. It has, in theory, some very, very widely set bounds. Players
participate in a game overseen by the ref; their characters inhabit a game-world controlled by the
ref; the ref ultimately controls the game-narrative. In the last resort, the ref is in overall charge of
every aspect of the game. He can even overrule player roleplay decisions. But, to put it mildly, that is
not a power which should be lightly exercised to the detriment of player roleplay autonomy.
If the player wants to roleplay in an utterly ludicrous manner (for instance introducing consciously
anachronistic references to cult comedy films featuring killer bunny rabbits, or suddenly deciding
that his quasi-medieval peasant is going to expound upon some variant of the theory of quantum
mechanics), and if thats spoiling the rest of the groups fun (and thats a big if), then the ref has
the ultimate right to say no. Please do so as non-judgmentally as possible. It may be game-ending.
In the event that restrictions, for instance due to overwhelming fear or some kind of insanity, apply
to how a character is roleplayed then the player can be held to those restrictions, and it falls to the
ref to police that in absolutely clear-cut cases. But generally speaking, players should be trusted as
far as possible to roleplay their characters more or less however they wish. Always assume if you
possibly can that the player is roleplaying his character in good faith in a way that is true to his best
understanding and concept of the character, and which he genuinely and honestly believes to be
compatible with any restrictions in the rules, if such there are, on how his character should be
played.
In other words, give people the benefit of the doubt as to how they play their characters. Even when
youre not convinced that theres much room for doubt at all.
Even if a player seems to be breaking a roleplaying restriction or for some other reason roleplaying
very questionably, its not a good idea even to question the players roleplay unless its very starkly
lacking in credibility, is getting his character a very clearly unfair advantage or is significantly
disrupting the fun of the group. Even then the best policy is generally simply to give the player the
chance to reconsider the characters actions on the footing that the player may not have considered
the wider context or full implications of what he said the character was going to do, or may have
forgotten about or not understood his roleplaying restrictions. For instance:- Well, its up to you if
you want to do that, but are you absolutely sure, considering that your restrictions currently say ?
A similar issue may come up if the player has forgotten (or for whatever reason, even his own
laziness, never learnt) some key fact about the game-world which to his character would be deeply
ingrained knowledge, or if the player doesnt have the basic appreciation that his character would
have of the fundamental significance of some fact known to both player and character.
Suppose your character is in a crowded bar in his home town where the use of the Dark Tongue is
not merely socially frowned upon, but in fact seriously illegal. Someone offends your (still sober)
character, and you, having forgotten that the Dark Tongue is illegal or not quite realising how
important that is, respond by indicating that you swear at him loudly in the Dark Tongue. At that
point any half-competent ref, if he suspects that youve forgotten that the Dark Tongue is outlawed
or dont realise how important that is, and if he can do so without undue interruption to the flow of
the game, will remind you that its outlawed and give you the chance to reconsider your actions,
possibly even taking the time to explain to you what a big deal it is. After all, your character almost
certainly wouldnt have forgotten that the Dark Tongue is outlawed and despised to him, its deeprooted knowledge. So you should be given the chance to make the decision whether your character
swears in the Dark Tongue or not in full knowledge of the likely repercussions of which your
character would be fully conscious. Its a question both of realism and of basic fairness.
31
For the ref simply to allow the players first response to stand without giving the player a chance to
reconsider on the basis of what his character would actually clearly be aware of in fact undermines
the players roleplay autonomy. It is arbitrary to let the players uninformed decision stand when in
fact the player should have been cogniscent of the full facts of the laws and customs of the gameworld. It takes the real decision away from the player and makes it unfairly dependent on his realworld memory. It tends to make his roleplay less credible. Its not fair play.
In other words, you are actually doing the player a favour by intervening and giving him the chance,
if he wishes it, to reconsider, this time with full information so that his decision can if he so wishes
reflect what he thinks, on a fully informed basis, that his character would do.
Of course, dont overdo it constantly interrupting a players roleplay is counter-immersive. Indeed,
the mere fact that deeper immersion often critically depends on the free flow of in-character
dialogue may mean that you entirely reasonably prefer not to interrupt the player at all. But a
tabletop game does have interruptions from time to time, even simply for the rolling of dice, and
they are less jarring in tabletop games than, say, in LARP.
Sometimes reminding a player of his characters roleplaying restrictions or of other parameters for
believable roleplay can serve a similar function of helping the player to make a fully-informed
decision if some key fact seems to have slipped his mind or has never in fact been explained to him.
For instance, if the player of a deeply religious and theologically traditionalist character proposes to
push for the establishment of a democratic socialist state with free and fair elections by universal
suffrage, it may be worth reminding him that hereditary or theocratic rule prevails throughout the
game-world and is widely ascribed to the divine right of kings or divine right of the priesthood. That
gives him the chance to roleplay in a way that fits the established framework of the game-world.
So even if a player says his character does something which you as ref think lacks credibility or
breaks the rules on how his character has to be played, the most that you should probably do is ask
whether he is happy for his character to do what he has proposed to do bearing in mind the
characters general background and personality, the facts (and obvious implications of those facts)
that he would be aware of or (as the case may be) his specific roleplaying restrictions and maybe
mention whichever particular feature may potentially conflict with what the player is proposing that
the character do, and which you suspect he may have forgotten or not been aware of.
The emphasis is on a light-touch approach.
If you give the player a chance to reconsider his characters actions and he remains set on his initial
intentions, unless he is blatantly taking the mick (and often even if he is), you should roll with it. He
may be going somewhere interesting. There may be more depth and complexity to his character
than meets the eye. Although the definitive version of who the character is is the version understood
by the ref, from a practical, creative point of view the characters personality exists only partly on
paper, and largely in the players head, much more so than in the refs:- only the player can roleplay
the character convincingly and consistently with how hes roleplayed that character in the past. If a
player cant or simply wont stick to his characters roleplaying restrictions, better to change those
restrictions than to waste time and effort trying to force the player to play to those restrictions. That
may mean making other changes to the character for the sake of game-balance and consistency.
Another aspect of player autonomy is the avoidance of railroading. The players should generally be
allowed a sense of real control over the direction their characters lives take. If they want to explore
some avenue of play which you hadnt anticipated, as ref you should generally engage with that and
improvise as necessary. Dont force them into one event after another to the extent of nullifying any
32
sense they may have of a real choice in what happens. That diminishes their sense of ownership of
their characters, their sense of ownership of in-game events and their stake in the game. A useful
technique if you want to move the story along is sometimes to supply the players with a written
prelude to the next part of the adventure. Put in writing it may still deprive the players of effective
control over some particular event, but at least the fact that its written down, rather than played
out, downplays its centrality to the game. And you are being upfront about what you are doing, so
the players may not later so readily suspect you of railroading them secretly when you are not.
One final aspect of player autonomy is ensuring that the players have enough meaningful
information about the game-world to be able to have a meaningful impact on it. Knowing about
general current affairs in the game-world beyond their characters immediate concerns can be
important because it opens up avenues which the players may wish to explore. Without that kind of
general information the players are rather more reliant on you to serve up interesting encounters
and situations, which can seem like railroading when taken to extremes. If you dish out the odd bit
of information which has no direct relevance to the central events of the game, the players may find
some very interesting way of using it. The odd red herring may also serve many other purposes too.
INVENTION AND INTERPRETATION DEMARCATING THE PLAYERS ROLE
There are many reasons why in an immersive roleplaying game the players essential and primary
role is simply to play his character immersively, choosing his characters intended actions, and not to
invent aspects of the game-world or narrate the events of the game. You want to give the players
the sense of exploring the game-world as if it were a real place the sense of a fully fleshed-out,
pre-existing world. This is important for the players in-character immersion as a tool for heightening
their experience of the game. You want to give the players a sense of the unknown, which may be
critical to their enjoyment of mystery, suspense, intrigue, fear and horror. You also want to maintain
the players sense of facing challenges. But there are limits to this. How so?
Whenever a player plays his character, he inherently has to interpret the information that youve
given him about the game-world and the games events. Consider this example, where you are
playing a character who has sworn a vow of truthfulness, and is even magically bound (by means of
some strange ritual) to always tell the truth:Ref:-
[His hand raised ] The messenger dismounts hurriedly and runs over to you. [His
hand extended across the table ] My Lord, grave news. The Zhoranians have
captured your fathers castle. Your family and many retainers are imprisoned within.
The womenfolk are due to be sold into slavery or marriage within the week.
You:-
[Your hand extended across the table, with a gasp ] My darling sister! I must
protect her virtue. And my poor mother! This I cannot bear. We shall attack
tonight!
The ref made no express mention of your characters sister, nor of your characters mother. He did
not state that either had been captured and perhaps it has never been stated explicitly that your
character even has a sister, or that he is close to her in any way, or that his mother still lives. But
what would you make of this response?
Ref:-
[His hand raised ] Er, um, sorry mate erm, no sister. You have three brothers
actually, and youd, um, presume that theyve all been captured, but youve never
had a sister. And, erm, no mother either. Youve, um, never known your mother, and
one of the demonic imps who taught you magic once insinuated that you had no
human mother but were somehow summoned or created using a magic ritual.
33
Even worse (!) would be if instead the refs response went like this:Ref:-
[His hand raised ] Er, sorry didnt I mention? Your character has no family, and he
hasnt any connection to any kind of castle. So, its fairly obvious to you that the
messenger is either lying or at least mistaken. And strictly its cheating of you not to
check that out with me first! But Ill let you off this time.
You might be slightly puzzled by either of these responses. Im not suggesting for a minute that they
are good responses. In fact, its probably fair to say that both these responses from the ref would be
fairly terrible responses, and possibly game-ending. But why exactly?
Lets go back over what happened in that short example dialogue. Lets assume that nothing about
your characters family, nor about their castle, has ever previously been stated by the ref, nor
included in any kind of written character background which you or any player has submitted for the
refs approval. If thats so, by referring in in-character dialogue to your mother and your sister you
may have been interpreting the information that the ref gave you through the words that the
messenger spoke, but you were also inventing facts about your character and about his family.
Why would you invent facts when you roleplay your character? Part of the answer is that its almost
impossible to avoid doing so. There is no hard and fast distinction between when you are
interpreting the info that the ref has given you and when you are inventing new facts, so it would be
impossible to stick strictly to interpretation. What exactly would you wish to do, as the player, when
the messenger spoke those words? Would you interrupt the flow of the game to clarify with the ref
whether your character had a family, whether they had a castle, who the members of your
characters family were and so forth? If not and bear in mind that it could cause substantial
disruption to the flow of the in-character dialogue to do so then you are left with effectively no
other alternative than to interpret what the ref has said for yourself and in effect invent new facts.
Even if you say nothing of your individual relatives but simply say then we must attack at once!,
given that that is intended to be your characters truthful response, you are interpreting what the ref
has said and in effect inventing new facts.
Almost anything that anyone says is going to be open to interpretation in one way or another, and
that is certainly true of most of what the ref says in a roleplaying game. When you give your
characters truthful and authentic response to what the ref says, you are very often drawn into an
inevitable interpretation of some grey area, whether you realise it or not. Often that will involve
some element of what could be characterised as invention. So, in other words, at bottom you cannot
reasonably get away from inventing facts, even as a player. Thats not an ideal situation from the
point of view of your in-character immersion.
So, how to deal with that inherent problem? Should you consistently and at all times minimise any
element of invention, regardless of the context or situation, sticking as rigidly as possible to the facts
that the ref has already explicitly stated, and reducing any element of interpretation to the thinnest
it can possibly be?
No. Plainly and simply, no.
And why not? Plainly, minimising invention and interpretation helps to avoid pitfalls for immersive
roleplay. So why not adopt that as your consistent approach?
The answer is that straitjacketing yourself in that way would have a pronounced braking effect on
the flow of in-character dialogue which is a key tool in achieving in-character immersion.
34
No ref is going to write up or even approve a background for your character which is so detailed that
it covers every possible eventuality; it is not even conceivably possible to do so, let alone practicable,
as the possible turns that the game may take are infinite. (What if it suddenly becomes relevant
whether your characters mother has grey hair, or green eyes, or whether she enjoys sewing, or
what kind of musical entertainment she prefers?) Even if such a detailed character background could
be written up, you could not possibly memorise it. So, there will always be gaps which may need to
be filled its an inevitability, and its futile to struggle against it.
Sure, you could in effect pause the game every time you identify such a gap, while you clarify with
the ref what is or is not acceptable. But that would mean interrupting the flow of dialogue and
weakening your in-character immersion, as well as everyone elses.
So, when it comes to your characters personal background, and to some extent his personal
appearance, the best way to facilitate in-character immersion for yourself and the other participants
is to accept the inevitability that to some degree you will invent facts or interpret very liberally the
information that the ref has given you.
The ref always has the right to veto any facts you invent and to veto your interpretation of the info
he has given you.
My advice would be in essence that as a player you should generally confine any facts you invent to
matters which are personal to your character and restrict yourself to inventing facts which are
unlikely to have implications for anything which has already been established as part of any other
player characters background or indeed as any part of the wider game-world. It is generally safe to
invent things which merely add colour to the game, but which will have no likely influence on the
fundamental shape of the games events their course, their direction, their pace. Of course, you
may invent something to add mere colour, and then find that the whole shape of the game hinges
on that fundamental fact, but if, as a player, you invent things with a view to adding colour alone
then you are on surer ground.
The crucial thing to bear in mind here is that things may already be established facts which are part
of another characters background or of the wider game-world, and you may be unaware of those
established facts. Perhaps the ref (and possibly a player or players as well) would prefer to keep that
information secret. Dont go inventing facts if there is a significant risk that the ref or another player
may have to contradict what you invent in order to retain consistency with those pre-established
facts, because that could give you an undesirable clue as to what those pre-established secret facts
may be.
For instance, suppose that you are hunting an unknown monster in the woods near your fathers
castle. Dont go inventing the fact that your father has a supply of silver arrows if the monster is a
werewolf harmed only by silver arrows, the ref may feel that he has to contradict you in order to
preserve the level of challenge he had intended for the game, thus possibly raising the implication
that the monster you are hunting is a werewolf, when that ought to be a secret.
Try instead to stick to minor elements of invention which the ref in particular is going to have no
possible reason to contradict. In the main, this means sticking to things which are part of your
characters personal background, family history, appearance and suchlike. It also means not
inventing facts of a startlingly unusual nature, not inventing facts which are calculated to give you
advantages in the game and not inventing facts which are obviously relevant to the difficulty of
surmounting obstacles that the ref or other players have put in your path.
35
As a rule of thumb, a good principle to follow is that as a player you can give voice and form to facts
which you already firmly imagine as being a part of your characters background, personal history,
appearance and so forth, without waiting for them to be validated by the ref you can express what
you see in your mind as an obvious aspect of your character and his personal connections and
formative experiences but dont purposively invent things to achieve some specific aim beyond
merely adding colour to your character. When you invent facts about your character, you should be
as impartial as you can. A good litmus test is whether the facts you are inventing tend to be, on the
whole, as likely to damn your character as they are to save him.
That general approach provides a bulwark against unjustified perceptions of munchkinism, but more
importantly it helps to minimise the likelihood of any conflict between the facts you invent and preestablished facts, and it helps to reduce the likelihood of unduly exposing the refs secrets.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the only reason why player invention is expressly tolerated
even to this limited extent in a puristically immersive roleplaying game is to keep in-character
dialogue flowing. So, as a player, dont be deliberately inventing facts outside of in-character
dialogue. Only when you are speaking as your character should you be inventing new facts.
Remember also that there is no need for you to invent new facts if you dont wish to. Going out on a
limb to invent new facts as a player could be deeply counter-immersive for you. The only real reason
to give voice and life to newly invented facts as a player is so that you can continue speaking as your
character in a natural and flowing way without having to pause to check facts with the ref. If you can
keep the conversation flowing naturally without adding new facts you may of course do so, but if the
right facts pop into your head, if they occur to you as an element which you already imagine to be
part of your characters background or appearance or part of the colour of the game, then if it seems
natural to you to give voice and life to them in in-character dialogue, you may equally do that. Its
whichever seems easier and more natural to you.
In Souls Calling, one thing you should not do as a player is invent facts which give your character
significant possessions or social status which your character would not otherwise have and which
are not already within the broad parameters described on your character sheet. This is because
your starting wealth and social status are carefully balanced against your Fate score during
CharGen. If for instance you were to gift your peasant PC a finely crafted sword which was not paid
for out of his starting wealth, or to declare that his cousin is a member of the gentry, that could be
quite unfair to another player not willing to take such liberties. Subtler forms of this sort of
behaviour can be insidious.
If you feel more comfortable having room to manoeuvre with regard to your PCs possessions or
social ties, make allowance for that from the start with something suitably vague written on your
character sheet with the refs agreement. For instance, you could have miscellaneous adventuring
gear to the value of 100 silver coins or you could persuade the ref to let you pay one point of Fate
during CharGen in return for miscellaneous social connections and advantages.
Of course you can gain social status and wealth as the game progresses without expending any
points of Fate to do so, but those elements of your characters background are generally fairly
clearly defined through play and there is less need for you to be inventing important details.
These warnings do not apply to such trivialities as inventing ordinary family members and friends
for a normal player character who hasnt been genned up as a loner from the start. The CharGen
process is not designed to take account of all the minutiae of your social connections. Only
significant impact on your characters social status makes invented allies unfair to other players.
36
Sometimes a player may worry that if they are not at liberty to narrate, for instance, how their
character fights in battle, or other cool stuff that he does, the refs descriptions may clash with
how they (the player) already imagine their character to be, which may be jarring for the players incharacter immersion. That is a fair point to make and precisely where you draw the line on players
inventing facts depends on how the individual psychologies of your players work and on what helps
them to immerse in character.
But invention even of this kind does intrinsically involve adopting an in some senses external
perspective on your character, and may involve you in unforeseen clashes with the refs preestablished secrets. For instance, suppose that you narrate that your way of killing a beast (once that
broad outcome has been rolled for and established in basic terms) is specifically to rip out its heart
and eat it, but it turns out that the beasts heart contains a talisman which would bring it back to life
within a minute of its death, and the ref had not envisaged that you would be narrating the beasts
final death, but only its first death, with the intention that you would then be taken by surprise
when it revived and have to slay it again then figure out how to finally destroy it.
Of course I am bound to accept that that is a marginal example, and allowing players to narrate how
their characters kill the creatures that the dice say they have defeated is not generally speaking
greatly pernicious from the point of view of immersion. The key thing, though, is that it is easy to
avoid clashes between the refs narration and how you visualise the character:- you can do so simply
by being specific in what you propose that your character should do. Saying I will attack the
creature before you roll the dice for your attack is needlessly vague; saying Ill swing my great
sword at the creatures head in a wide arc gives a far better picture of your intentions for your
character, and when the dice have been rolled the ref already has some creative input from you to
assist him in narrating an appropriate outcome. It might be argued that this creates a duplication of
effort, but I would say that if first you, then the ref, use vivid language, that can help to fuel
everyones imagination as the variety of language used assists everyone in visualising what happens,
even if strictly speaking the primary function of what you are doing is to choose your characters
actions rather than to provide descriptive narrative.
This leaves the question of what the ref should do when a player accidentally invents some fact
which either contradicts pre-established secret facts or for some other reason would need to be
contradicted to preserve some important element of the game, such as the level of challenge that
the ref has in mind, or is otherwise inappropriate.
In the central case of an immersive tabletop roleplaying game the ref has a veto over any facts you
invent. He has a veto over any interpretation you give of the info he has supplied. But when you are
inventing or interpreting facts which relate to your characters personal background and
appearance, the ref should exercise that veto sparingly. That is not to say that the ref should only
exercise the veto if not exercising it would ruin the game. If that were the refs approach, whether it
said so explicitly in the rules or whether the players merely picked up on that fact through observing
the refs behaviour, it would create the problem that whenever the ref chose to exercise the veto,
that in itself could imply information to the ruin of the secrecy which ought to surround some
elements of the game-world.
I would suggest that the ref ought to do two things.
First, as ref, put in place precautions to avoid inappropriate invention of facts by the players. Do so
by carefully analysing the written background of each character and giving each player a written list
of any topics which you deem to be strictly your preserve as ref and which they ought to avoid
inventing facts about. There may well be no such out of bounds topics but if there are any, list them.
37
For instance, suppose a character is known to be some kind of demonspawn. You might decide as ref
that the precise details of the characters quasi-demonic nature are an integral part of the backstory
to the game, which may be connected with aspects of other player characters backgrounds in ways
which you have not yet revealed to any of the players at all. You might therefore tell the player in
advance that he should avoid inventing facts about the characters demonic heritage.
Second, as ref, exercise your veto if a player invents facts during play which: seem highly remarkable or unusual, or
seem calculated to secure some advantage for the character, or
would in some way spoil the game, or
annoy you in some way or make you feel uncomfortable, even if you cant say why.
The last of these bullet points is not supposed to imply some kind of power trip for the ref. The point
is that if you feel uncomfortable with invented fact or if your instincts tell you to say no, you should
go with your gut because you are relying on your subconscious to help you run the game the best
you can. The fact that you cant articulate why youre exercising your veto is not a compelling reason
in itself not to exercise the veto. Your conduct of your role as ref is not a matter of careful analysis of
every possible point; its a practical exercise in making the game fun, and you cant pause to dissect
every possible fact.
Even so, exercise the veto sparingly. If you are a naturally grumpy person then you might want to
exercise the veto if some invented fact is a massive irritant for you, but not if you find it only mildly
annoying.
PLANNING AND RUNNING ADVENTURES POSSIBLE TECHNIQUES
This is mainly meant as a collection of ideas to explore as the referee of an immersive tabletop RPG.
Some will be relevant to players too, but if youre the ref, its your job to get the players playing in
the style that the game demands. That can mean persuading the players to try a particular approach,
or leading by example and inspiring them. If an RPG is going to work as an immersive RPG, the ref
more than anyone else is going to have to facilitate immersive play. The ref is the person who has to
take responsibility for the overall style and feel of the game. That can mean offering the players tips
and advice, although you have to be careful to do so in a way which is encouraging and empowering
for the players, and doesnt come across as a lecture. For instance, phrase your tips as questions.
Listen to your players. What sort of characters do they want to play? What sort of game do they
want to play? Where do they want the emphasis to be?
As ref you will be the one putting the most effort into the game. You have to know the rules and
adjudicate on them. You have to write up the essential backstory to the game, devise scenarios,
engage descriptively with the game-world, keep it all believable, help the players to develop a sense
of immersion and ownership of their characters and generally run the show. Youre not going to go
to all this effort if youre not motivated by an interest in the game and the player characters. Youre
entitled to insist on your preferences to a very significant degree. Its even necessary. But each
player character probably matters more to the particular player than to anyone else at the table.
After all, the players whole focus is often on his character. If the player wants to play a particular
kind of character as long as its one who meets the basic minimum of consistency with the gameworld and wont totally ruin the kind of game you have in mind who are you to stand in his way?
Even if you think that the game would be far better off with fewer player characters of the type the
player wants to play, or none of that type at all, if letting the player play the character he wants is
not going to render the game utterly unbelievable or ruin the kind of scenarios or themes youve
38
envisioned, roll with it. After all, youll want the players to show appreciation for the effort youve
put into the game. Thatll come far more readily if you let them play characters they enjoy, even if
that means making some kind of compromise in terms of the sort of game you want to run.
Having said that, a players choice of character has important implications for their own immersion
and for everyone elses suspension of disbelief. Players should restrict themselves to characters they
can easily and psychologically comfortably imagine themselves being and can effectively and fairly
effortlessly portray, both in their general behaviour and specifically in the way they speak. That
means playing characters whose mindsets they can instinctively understand and are comfortable
with. It also means playing characters whose voices they can reasonably mimic. Most players really
should only play characters of their own sex for both reasons. Obviously if a player has particular
speech difficulties then you make allowances. If you are adopting particular accents to represent
how different population groups speak in the game-world, players should stick to characters whose
accents they can convincingly put on although that could include foreigners with such a high level
of mastery of the language of the home nation that they have no trace of a foreign accent.
Theres nothing wrong, in principle, with playing a character whose appearance is utterly outlandish
and who is plainly not human. You might want to play a badger-headed fae spirit-made-flesh who
rides on a giant fae boar, or just a common-or-garden gnome (a murderous one?). But give some
thought to the personality of the character youre going to portray. If youre effectively playing what
we would think of as a highly rational character with a sensible human mindset, making out that he
isnt even human could be jarring for you or for the other gamers. If your character doesnt look
human, or if hes disguised as a human but is actually something else, then he probably shouldnt
have a totally ordinary human personality, though he should have something in common with you.
No matter what character you play, what you need to do, as a player, is to have a very clear idea
from the outset of strong personality traits and behavioural tendencies which will mark your
character out from the herd. You need to construct a belief-system and world-view for your
character which at least by some twisted kind of logic makes sense. The clearer an idea you can
articulate of exactly what your character believes, what he loves, what he hates, what he wants and
why he acts the way he does, the more easily you can adopt his mindset with the level of
consistency needed for immersion. One character I played in a live roleplaying game was a firewizard called Coal. His central concept was that he wanted to bring light and warmth to the world
an obvious euphemism for setting it on fire. It was a very simple concept. The guy was a total
nutcase, a pyromaniac pyromancer, fixated on fire by no means a unique or innovative idea for a
character, and by no means sane, but very, very easy to play. And it worked. It gave me an
immersive experience of play, and people told me they found my character scary even though in
all the games I played as Coal, I never actually used more than the weakest fire-magic (and never
touched the fireball I had in my back pocket). Your character concept doesnt need to be as basic or
in-your-face as Coals. You can go for something more subtle and complex. But you need to bottom
out how your guy sees the world, and why.
Some of that you can do after play has started. Your characters personality can evolve. You can flesh
it out once the game is underway. But its a really good idea to have some kind of a basic skeleton of
your characters anticipated personality ready before you get going a fundamental notion of who
he is which acts as a unifying force for his personality. That way you have a crutch to fall back on if
you need it, and your roleplay can be consistent. If you dont get the basics sorted at the start, you
may find that your evolving character concept is full of inextricable contradictions and that youre
struggling to rationalise why your character has done some of the things he has. Real people are
complex in that way. But for the sake of your immersion, for the sake of bringing your character to
life, and for ease of portrayal, dont be afraid to simplify.
39
As a player, give your character one overriding burning drive which lies at the heart of his every
major choice, a fundamental passion which in a manner of speaking knits all the threads of his
personality together and offers a guide to his every action. Set it down in your write-up of his
personality traits and orientate yourself by it during play. It may, of course, change as play goes on.
Whats the refs proper role in a players choice of character? You shouldnt be afraid to insist that
players play characters that it is within their reasonable capabilities to portray, although obviously
you dont want to be tactless about it. You can usually insist on players playing characters of their
own sex, though be sensitive if anyone has special reasons for not wanting to. If you want to run a
puristically immersive game you can insist on everyone playing characters of human appearance,
although thats up to you. Having characters of non-human appearance may also have strong
implications for the style of game youre running, depending on the setting. You can insist on players
choosing characters whose accents they can manage. You can ask players to come up with clear
personality concepts for their characters before the game starts so that you can be sure that they
are going to be able to play their characters immersively and consistently with everyones
suspension of belief, and without ending up with knots of irresolvable contradiction emerging from
how they play their characters. Beyond these aspects, you should stay hands off as far as possible.
The fact that you dont like the players character concept, whether for the characters appearance,
abilities, personality or other aspects, or a mix, is not a good reason to prevent the player from
playing that character. Provided that the character concept is clear, with a clear basic personality
ready for play, and provided that the player is capable of playing the character instinctively and
immersively and portraying the character reasonably effectively, that should be enough to satisfy
you, as long as the character isnt actually going to destroy the game for you or the other players.
Its worth keeping an eye on the niche that each character is going to occupy within the group of
player characters (or party). In a small group of, say, 2 to 8 players, each player character (or PC)
has to bring something unique to the table. That could be a question of their personality, but usually
its better for the game if each PC has some kind of area of ability or resources where he outshines
the other PCs. One guy might be great at melee combat, another might be better at ranged combat,
another might wield eldritch powers, another might be persuasive and a fifth might be great at
hiding and sneaking. One character might be wealthy, one might have allies and contacts, one might
be very lucky or observant or knowledgeable.
No rules system can address this comprehensively. It has to be a question of you as ref having a look
over the PCs abilities before play starts and working out whether everyone has a niche that they can
convincingly occupy if they choose to do so. That niche is only going to exist in the very specific
context of a game being run the way youre going to run the game, so what looks like a niche in one
refs game might look irrelevant in anothers.
What happens if you look at the PCs abilities and can only conclude that the niches arent clear
enough or distinct enough for each player to have ring-fenced opportunities to contribute? Some
players are so competent that they can carve a niche for themselves in almost any circumstances,
but generally speaking its worth fiddling with the PCs abilities and resources (by suggesting, not
imposing, changes) so that everyone ends up with a niche. Try to sort things out with the players,
without letting them all in on each others secrets, but reaching agreement with players individually
on modifications to their characters which leave each player with a convenient niche to occupy.
What this is about is facilitating player impact not just for the group as a whole but for each player
individually. Its the same reason why game-balance can be important. Each player needs a decent
opportunity to contribute to the flow of the game or he may lose interest and simply stop
roleplaying immersively.
40
So before you give the players the final OK for their PCs, you should check over their abilities and
resources and satisfy yourself that you can run a game which offers each PC the opportunity to
make a unique contribution. But dont get your knickers in a twist about it. Niche protection doesnt
have to be absolutely perfect.
If your players are inexperienced, short of time or simply lazy, you can think up clear personality
structures and belief-systems for their characters, and offer them to the players for their
convenience or for inspiration. You can subtly promote conflicting priorities for the different PCs.
Consider interlinked backgrounds for the player characters. How do they know each other? Just
having met in a tavern or in some dramatic and perilous situation is a standard trope of RPGs, but it
doesnt necessarily give the PCs the best launchpad for party cohesion (that is, cohesion among the
party of player characters) or for believable roleplay, let alone for intrigue or poignant themes.
Player characters backgrounds, interlinked or not, might include secret information which perhaps
some players know and others dont. Even if the PCs are likely ultimately to end up as close, genuine
allies, the process of how they get there can be highly entertaining. They may have to overcome
mistrust and suspicion first. It can be a difficult judgment call for the players when to share their
secret information; they may not even realise that some of the information they have is sensitive.
Consider writing or at least fine-tuning the PCs backgrounds yourself (as ref). That way you can
include partial or incomplete information, or set things up so that the characters backgrounds are
interlinked with each other or with the backstory to the game and its likely scenarios in a way which
the players do not initially understand. You can sow the seeds of tension and potential conflict
between a PC and an NPC, or between PCs, from the very inception of the game. That can help you
to develop the players sense of the unknown later on, and everything that comes with that. But
check that each player is happy with his background and be prepared to re-write it if hes really not.
Think about dramatic overarching threads of interlinked events which might run through your
game from session to session, perhaps at first kept secret from some or all of the players in large
part or entirely, and gradually revealed piece by piece. But do not allow yourself to slip into the habit
of railroading your PCs. Overarching threads of what you might call plot can spice up the game and
enhance the players sense of mystery, suspense and discovery. A particular thread of plot should
not end up as the be-all and end-all of your game. You should always be open to changing the
direction you had envisaged the game as taking if thats the natural outcome of the PCs actions or if
the events you had envisaged look likely to get in the way of the players fun, or yours.
Consider fleshing out some major non-player characters (NPCs) and a selection of archetypal minor
NPCs in a fair amount of relevant detail before the game starts. Fleshing out an element of the game
in advance doesnt necessarily mean addressing every possible detail, but you have to cover a few
interesting bits and pieces at the very least, and its helpful to cover whatever is very likely to be
used in play. You dont need to address every possible stat that even a major NPC might have, as
long as you write up the stats he has which are likely to come into play in the game. Consider having
an NPC who is simultaneously a potential ally and a potential enemy of the player characters,
rather than simply having an NPC whose position is black-and-white as their friend or foe. There
could be mild tension between the NPC and the party (that is, the band of player characters), open
hostility with potential for rapprochement or simply ambiguity or misunderstanding.
Consider fleshing out secret organisations such as furtive cults which the PCs may come to hear
differing things about. Think about the various partly contradictory rumours which the PCs might
encounter about them. You could incorporate some of those rumours into some of the PCs
41
backgrounds. Perhaps different PCs believe different things about a given cult. Perhaps one is
secretly a member. Like an individual NPC, a secret organisation doesnt have to be unambiguously
friend or foe. It could have some intermediate position.
Flesh out in advance some possible locations which you might use in the game, where key events
can take place. These could be things like creaky old taverns, cobwebbed ships or beautiful forest
glades. Writing up possible locations is like writing up NPCs in advance. You might use most or all of
these locations in play, or you might only use some of them. Have them ready with a few key
descriptive elements so youre ready to drop into your descriptive patter on cue.
Consider having a few ready thought-out objects of interest written up, such as a strange painting
which alludes to the founding principles of one of your secret organisations, a sword of fine
craftsmanship stolen from a powerful noble or even something as simple as a treasure-map. When
an opportunity presents itself to introduce one of these objects into the game you will be ready with
your descriptive patter because you already have a concept (or prop!) for that object ready to hand.
Obviously you will want to spend some considerable time thinking about key events and key
scenarios which you envisage may happen during the game. It may be safest to err on the side of
caution and write up brief summaries of plenty of potential events, even if you dont end up using
them all. If you think the game is stalling, or if you fancy a change of direction or pace to spice things
up, you can introduce one of your pre-envisaged events. Having a bunch of them written up, even if
its just a sentence or two as a seed idea for what may happen, can be a great crutch if you find
yourself at a loss for an idea of where to take the game next. It means you wont suffer the refs
equivalent of writers block in the middle of the game an experience which could be both
frustrating and embarrassing. Knowing that you have plenty of potential scenarios already written
up and ready for you to run with can be a great boost to your confidence because you dont have to
worry about running out of ideas mid-game.
Consider the potential for pre-prepared written hand-outs for the players, including secret ones.
You could even have a series of pre-prepared written hand-outs ready to run a mini side-adventure
for one or more of the players while you keep the rest of them busy with the main game. Obviously
the hand-outs will need to leave room for the players to make significant choices or they may feel
railroaded and lose interest. One difficulty is that you have to write up a selection of the PCs
possible actions in advance, and it can be difficult to anticipate how the player would roleplay, so
you risk your offering being unconvincing to the player (and counter-immersive). One approach
could be to wait until you have seen the player playing the character for several sessions before
trying your hand at this. Alternatively you could do it at the very outset of play before the player has
formed a clear concept of how to roleplay his character your hand-outs may mould his vision of
the character, and wont jar with his pre-existing notions of the character if he doesnt yet have any.
Be aware that eating during the game can sometimes be too much of a distraction from immersion.
You dont have to be fascistic about it, but eating a full hot meal during the game is quite likely to be
counter-immersive. Light snacks are OK. Heavy food should be discouraged. Eat beforehand!
When the game starts get your players to close their eyes briefly and imagine being their
characters. Dont overdo it no hypnosis please! just a short exercise to get into the right mindset.
Once play has started, be ready to keep your patter going. Drop elements of description into the
game. But know when to shut up too. Everyone has to have a turn to speak. Its a game, not a
monologue. Make effective use of pauses. Pay attention to how your players roleplay let yourself
become absorbed in that. When you roleplay, let your emotions and your physical body feel like the
42
characters. When you roleplay, even if you are seated and cant make wild gestures or swing a
sword, let yourself feel that youre doing everything with your entire being, not just brain and voice.
DURING PLAY MAKE ONLY SPARING DIRECT USE OF THE DETAILED HARD AND FAST RULES OF THE
GAME, GENERALLY SPEAKING WHEN A GREAT DEAL IS AT STAKE OR THE USE OF THE FULL RULES IS
PARTICULARLY LIKELY TO BE INTERESTING. AT OTHER TIMES USE THE DETAILED HARD AND FAST
RULES OF THE GAME AS A SOURCE OF CONTEXT OR GUIDANCE FOR HOW YOU NARRATE AND
ADJUDICATE UPON IN-GAME EVENTS IN YOUR DISCRETION AS REF OR FOR HOW YOU USE
LIGHTER-TOUCH RULES WITH A GREATER ELEMENT OF REF DISCRETION. AT ALL TIMES BE
PREPARED TO BEND THE HARD AND FAST RULES TO MAINTAIN THE BELIEVABILITY OF THE GAME.
In Souls Calling this particularly means using impressionistic combat except when a fight truly
deserves the spotlight time afforded by the detailed combat rules. If impressionistic combat looks
likely to turn out particularly badly for the player characters, thats fine:- you can always borrow a
dice-check from the detailed combat system in the normal way, to see how badly a PC gets hurt.
The warning I have just given is critical to maintaining proper balance among three important factors
in facilitating the players immersion:- smooth flow of play; believability / suspension of disbelief;
what I have earlier termed anchoring / reification. You, as ref, are unlikely to be as deeply immersed
in character as the players even when you are playing a particular character, and you will not be
immersed in character at all at other times; you are inherently out of step with the players level of
immersion. Be aware that for that reason it is easy for you to lose sight of the impact that
interruptions to the flow of the game can have on the players in-character immersion. For that
reason it is wise to err on the side of caution in the use of the hard and fast rules, by which I mean
be particularly careful not to overuse them. Minimal, occasional direct use of the hard and fast rules
is quite sufficient, provided always that they also form a part of the backdrop to your free narrative
and discretionary adjudications.
Try not to get into the habit of simply running a series of events as a sequence one after the other in
a pre-determined fashion, willy-nilly and regardless of anything the players choose to do. That can
very easily give the players the impression that you are railroading them, which can rob them of
their sense of ownership of their characters and of a stake in the game and can ruin their immersion.
Instead, think of ways to incorporate meaningful choices into the key events you have in mind for
the game. A choice is only meaningful if the players can have at least some clue as to how their
choices might pan out, so think of ways to foreshadow key events so that the players can try to
influence them or avert them. If the players do something which would frustrate some of your preenvisaged ideas for reasons which the players cannot possibly have any kind of clue about, you are
not really depriving them of a meaningful choice by retroactively adjusting your plans so that the key
event comes about nonetheless. But dont get into too much of a habit of doing that, in case that
habit leads you to nullify player choices even when they do have some clue as to their implications.
Some of the choices you present to your players should be starkly obvious but difficult dilemmas in
the sense that its immediately apparent to the players that the PCs are making an important and
difficult decision and that they have the freedom to decide what to do and some clue as to how it
may pan out. Dont make the right choice wholly obvious. Think about setting up these sorts of
choices so that you genuinely cant predict which way the players will go. Consider giving the
players impactful choices which have no right answer but only different answers. This helps the
players to develop a sense of ownership of the in-game events and therefore a sense of ownership
of their characters. At the same time, include subtler opportunities for the players to make choices
which are not thrust in their faces but which they can seek out. For instance, if you describe a rich,
43
drunken merchant asleep in a dimly lit tavern, you are implying (among other things) a choice for the
PCs to ignore him, to keep watch for pickpockets or to rifle through his pockets themselves.
Come up with a variety of potential pivotal moments of the game in advance which are flexible and
can be used in different ways. You might have possible events which you envisage using if the
players take the game in one direction, and others for if they take it in a different direction.
And if the players seem to be taking the game in a new direction, try running with it. Yes, it takes a
certain amount of confidence in your ability to think on your feet. But its not particularly difficult
once youre in the swing of it. It can help if youve written up a bunch of archetypal minor NPCs as
well as minor objects of interest and potential locations in advance, maybe without any fixed
intention of using them in play, but so that you can drop them into the game to fit a particular
direction that the players take the game in, which you may not have anticipated. In a game set in a
quasi-medieval town, you might stat up a pickpocket, a merchant, a violent robber, a town
guardsman, a tavern wench, a shopkeeper and a little urchin. If the players decide to hang around in
dark alleys late at night, they might find the robber assaulting the merchant. If they decide to check
out the market, they might notice the pickpocket coaching the urchin or trying to run away from the
town guardsman. Whatever shopping they want to do, whichever sort of shop or market stall they
want to visit, if you have a shopkeeper at the ready for them, you can drop him into that scenario. If,
just for the sake of doing something you would never have anticipated, the players decide to have
their characters go and sunbathe on the roof of the inn where they are staying, they might notice
the robber casing out the merchants house. Its up to them if they want to do anything about it.
Having NPCs ready with outline descriptions and some idea of their personalities means youre ready
for descriptive engagement with the game-world at the drop of a hat just scan your list of NPCs,
pick one appropriate for the scenario and immediately youre ready to launch into a descriptive
patter. At the very least it gives you something to do to keep the game going and keep everyone
interested while you work out what might happen next. Your descriptive engagement with the
details of the game-world helps the players sense of immersion and suspension of disbelief.
Keep the players updated with in-character knowledge of the general current affairs of the gameworld. There should always be something interesting happening which has nothing directly to do
with the PCs, but which they might possibly have some way of getting involved in if they so choose.
Giving the players this kind of information, which is known to their characters, is a way of ensuring
that the players have the necessary knowledge required to make meaningful choices in respect of
their characters actions. That, in turn, is a necessary thing if you want to maintain that critical
element of player impact which holds a players interest the chance for a player to influence the
course of the games events. Without meaningful knowledge players cannot make meaningful
choices without meaningful choices they cannot have a meaningful impact on the game. And thats
worse than railroading, because at least when you railroad a game, something interesting may be
happening, whereas without meaningful information, the game is going nowhere, so the players
have no real choice, but also nothing particularly interesting is happening.
But meaningful knowledge can only take the game so far. Its a necessary ingredient for player
impact and therefore to maintain immersion. But surplus knowledge and surplus player impact are
just that. Your game doesnt have to be completely open-ended in order to meet the baseline
minimum of player impact required to maintain your players immersion. There is nothing wrong in a
highly open-ended style of play, or sandbox-style gaming. But neither should you get too worked
up about the need for it, as long as you provide some meaningful knowledge and decent
opportunities for meaningful choices and player impact. Beyond a certain point, knowledge of the
setting and the opportunity to affect it can go beyond what is needed and can become an
44
unnecessary distraction from the key focal elements of the game which you have dreamt up as ways
to promote key experiences such as the excitement of challenge or a sense of mystery or horror.
Get an NPC, ideally a trusted ally of the PCs, to ask the PCs how they feel about particular things.
This gets the players naturally engaging descriptively with the game-world while keeping to their
characters points of view so it can heighten their immersion. Mirror their responses in your later
descriptions of similar things to reflect how they imply the PCs see the world. From time to time, get
an NPC to ask the PCs how they feel about each other and what they want from each other.
Promote direct speech dialogue involving the PCs. Whether its between PCs and NPCs or just
between PCs, naturally flowing dialogue is a great tool to get the players thinking in character. Let
the players have time for the PCs to simply interact with each other, and with your NPCs.
Sometimes you might promote topics to drive the discussion; sometimes you just let it happen.
Dont pressure the players to come up with creative input outside the realm of their characters
choices and perspectives. The players job is to adopt their characters mindsets, to see the world
through their characters eyes. When you ask the players for information, you are asking them to
adopt their characters points of view and report what they experience. You are not asking them to
devise external facts. Questions you throw at the players, even indirectly through in-character
dialogue, should encourage this immersion dont interrupt the flow of the game, once its
underway, to ask them to supplement details about their characters possessions, contacts or even
physical characteristics. Before or after the session, thats fine, but not in the middle of it.
Most of the time (not all), keep the players on their toes. Instead of stating things in black and white
terms, drop hints. Sow the seeds of tension and conflict between PCs and NPCs, and between PCs.
Dont overdo PC versus PC conflict or you may risk the fragmentation of the PCs as a group. Dont
ramp up PC versus NPC conflict to the point of turning the game into constant outright warfare or
some kind of a situation where your PCs are perpetually sitting on ten apocalypses at once. But a
variable and healthy amount of tension, conflict and uncertainty is the essence of a vibrant game.
As the game goes on, as ref you should reflect on questions like these during and between games:
are you supplying believable reasons for the PCs to remain basically cohesive as a group? is
the group of PCs at real risk of fragmentation in the foreseeable future and if so what can
you do to ensure that the PCs continue to have believable reasons to stay together?
are you keeping the game believable and avoiding crass and obvious contrivance? are you
avoiding or minimising the use of clichs and standard tropes to keep the game interesting?
are you spending enough time descriptively engaging with the game-world to heighten the
players immersion without overdoing it to the level of tedium? are you giving the players
enough meaningful, significant information to choose how they affect the game-world?
are you giving the players real choice to enhance their sense of a stake in the game and their
sense of ownership of their characters? are you respecting their key concepts of their
characters and taking care to avoid passing judgment on them unnecessarily, so they can
roleplay their characters with confidence? are you respecting their autonomy as players?
where could the next fight, puzzle or other challenge come from? what is its likely outcome?
will it be exciting for the players? will it be different to the last few challenges they faced?
is there potential to highlight poignant personal dilemmas for the PCs? can you draw on
their personalities, goals, backgrounds, in-game actions and relationships with each other (in
a broad sense) and with your NPCs to bring those dilemmas to life?
is there a chance to feed information to the players gradually and develop their sense of the
unknown and of mystery, suspense, discovery and, without overdoing it, horror and fear?
45
what about fostering some acceptable level of intrigue among the player characters is
there an opportunity to do that, without fragmenting them entirely as a group?
are you pacing the rewards of play unpredictably especially excitement, triumph and
discovery, as well as other key experiences? (always start entirely new games with a bang)
are you making effective use of pauses? are you giving the players time to simply roleplay?
is there potential for better use of written hand-outs, downtime feedback and suchlike?
are you keeping everyone involved? is everyone having fun and able to contribute to play?
HANDLING PLAYER REQUESTS

On the whole, as ref, you will find that your players are reasonable and realistic in the expectations
they have for what their characters can do. Usually, when your players ask for their characters to do
something, it will be a straightforward matter of either narrating it or calling for a dice-check. Its not
often worth stalling the game for dice-checks surrounding trivial actions, so oftentimes you will
simply narrate what happens.
But sometimes your players will be asking for their characters to attempt something which may turn
out to be impossible. Typically that may involve the acquisition of an object which simply doesnt
exist, or doesnt exist in their local area, or making contact with an NPC who simply doesnt exist, or
not in their local area.
For instance, a player might say:- Ill search the priests quarters and see if I can find a consecrated
wooden stake. There may simply be no consecrated stake in the priests quarters. The only sensible
outcome here is that the character does not find such an item. You might not want to convey that to
the player as definitive information, so you might still call for a dice-check as a red herring (although
thats not recommended if the absence of a consecrated stake is important for secret reasons), but
whatever the player rolls, hes not going to find the stake. Another example might be if the player
says:- Ill see if I can find another priest in the village. There may simply be no other priest in the
village. You can roleplay the characters search for another priest, but you as ref know all along that
its going to be fruitless. A similar situation can occur if a player character attempts something which
is simply beyond his abilities. For instance, he might try to jump across a chasm which you know is
wider than the greatest distance he could possibly clear. Plainly, he cant succeed.
Storygamers have a catchy mantra for this kind of situation:- say yes, or roll the dice, meaning that
anything that the players ask for must have at least some chance of working out. That dogma works
well for some storygames, but it is insidiously counterproductive in the context of a rich and varied
immersive roleplaying game intended to provide the full range of key experiences of play. It remains
wholly counterproductive even if you qualify it with a get-out clause along the lines that the ref
doesnt have to say yes, or roll the dice when doing so will damage the integrity of the game.
The best way to convey this is with a simple example; this one is edited from a post of mine on the
RPGPundits excellent website, theRPGSite.com, with added background information:Your neighbouring villagers are nearly all unanointed common folk, and as such they have no
factual knowledge of magic, including holy magic. The exception is Old Granny Whitelocks,
whose hair went white in her twenties, and who occasionally brews up foul-smelling traditional
remedies for sickly children. You suspect she knows something about the doings of the Fae in
the murky forests where she gathers her favourite herbs, and plainly she knows a great deal
about local legends. By no means even all holy priests are any more knowledgeable of magic
than are your fellow villagers. That said, any ordained holy priest who is a man of true faith and
redeemed in the sight of the angels, but of the common folk and unable to work magic himself,
46
nor even aware of it, has but to perform the rites of consecration and unbeknownst to him the
angels will likely subtly bless the consecrated thing for him.
Preying secretly upon your village is an ancient vampire by the name of Torvia. She can only be
killed with a consecrated stake. Youve found an exsanguinated corpse with two small bitemarks at the jugular, and as adventurers familiar with magic youve guessed that a vampire is
probably involved (you are shielding the villagers from knowledge of this awful truth). You
don't yet know that it takes a consecrated stake to kill this particular vampire.
Its a small village. The only priest was killed by bandits before the vampire arrived (in fact, the
resulting lack of holy worship in the village attracted her). The nearest holy man is a hermit
who can be reached through a murky and dangerous forest where the Unseelie Fae lead
travellers into danger, or you can take a safer route to find a holy priest already known to you
who lives in the nearest city. This is likely to present you with a dilemma take an extra risk to
your lives for a chance to save every possible villager by visiting the hermit and having the
stake ready before nightfall, or take the long route, knowing a few villagers will probably die
that night but that youll hopefully be able to deal with the vampire when you get back. But
before you can get to this dilemma you have to figure out that the consecrated stake is needed,
which provides an opportunity for investigation of the priest's notes, use of magical divinations,
roleplay with each other and Old Granny Whitelocks or perhaps other villagers, or whatever.
Now the ref isn't railroady, and he's prepared for you to abandon your fellow villagers to their
fate, or to try to devise your own holy ritual to consecrate a stake, which would require you to
make promises to an angel, or indeed for you to confront the vampire ignorant of what's
needed to kill her, in which case most of you will probably escape alive when it becomes
evident she cant be killed, but your village may be decimated before you can regroup.
But the absence of a consecrated stake at this juncture is pretty critical to the fun of the game
if you are going to want to take on the vampire in due course and not knowing about it is fairly
critical if you want a meaningful reason to investigate and roleplay around that aspect.
One of the player characters has some notion that legends speak of ancient vampires who can
only be killed in specific ways, and thinks that maybe the possibilities might include garlic from
the forests of distant Starizlavia whence vampires first came, decapitation with a sword forged
of bronze at noon on the summer solstice in the full light of the sun or impalement with a
consecrated stake. His player figures that the priest might possibly have consecrated a stake
out of superstition and asks the ref if he can find one in the priests quarters.
If the ref is running the game according to the storygamers mantra of say yes, or roll the
dice, he has two choices:1.
ruin a whole raft of potentially interesting aspects of the game by simply handing over
the stake;
2.
risk ruining a whole raft of interesting aspects of the game by giving the player a dicecheck for his character to get the stake.
If the players know or can figure out that the ref is running the game according to a qualified
version of the storygamers mantra of say yes, or roll the dice, with a get-out clause if
following that mantra will ruin the integrity of the game, then the ref has a third option:-
47
3.
refuse to apply the storygamers mantra, thus at least risking revealing that the absence
of the consecrated stake is something the ref considers fundamental to the integrity of
the game (even though it's plainly believable that there could possibly be one), meaning
that the players can infer that the consecrated stake is in fact definitely needed to kill the
vampire; if they manage to draw that inference, it spoils a part of the game.
In option (2) I say at least risking revealing because the ref could call for a dummy dicecheck but if the players roll well, and the ref still doesnt let them get the stake, they may
figure out whats going on.
The only way to avoid this kind of danger altogether is never to allow your players to develop a
sense of entitlement, an instinctive understanding that everything they ask for will be granted or at
least rolled for unless granting it would seriously undermine the game.
In more general terms, the clincher is the role of the refs final authority over what happens in the
game-world. In those kinds of storygame where players share narrative authority, the authentic
game-world is the game-world expressly described at the table. In games such as immersive
roleplaying games where the ref has final authority, the authentic game-world is essentially the one
in the refs head. The ref can use his overriding authority over the game-world to run the game in a
way which reflects his subconscious instincts and impulses. He can draw on more than simply the
open record of events in the game as stated at the table. By relying on instinct and impulse he can
run the events of the game-world more fluidly and believably than by relying on openly stated
narrative alone. This is plainly going to be hampered by any kind of mantra which straitjackets the
ref into giving at least a conditional acceptance to whatever the players ask for.
Following the storygamers mantra of say yes, or roll the dice also directly jeopardises the players
sense of the unknown, their sense of a pre-existing fleshed out game-world, their sense of mystery,
suspense and discovery and possibly their sense of horror or fear. For starters, if the players know or
can work out that the ref is following that approach if the ref never gainsays their requests directly
then they know that simply by asking for something they have a chance of changing the events of
the game retrospectively. In asking to find a consecrated stake in the house of a priest who, the ref
had envisaged, never consecrated a stake, if the players thereby necessarily create out of nothing at
least a chance that the priest did in fact consecrate a stake, then the game-world that the ref had
envisaged was plainly never better than a contingent reality. The players may sense that. It may
undermine their sense that they are exploring a world which actually exists in some fleshed-out
form, replacing it with the sense that they are participating imaginatively in the ongoing creation of a
game-world or telling of a story that the ref, with their help, is simply making things up as he goes
along and, moreover, making them up to suit the players demands.
Now, that kind of gaming is all very well and good, but it is not immersive roleplay. It is storygaming.
With the storygamers mantra in place, the players have a special responsibility not to ask for things
which will screw up the game; they may also find that even asking for something can give them
information which they would rather not have had at that stage. This means that the storygamers
mantra in effect asks the players to adopt a global perspective when they ask for things for their
characters, taking into account what will make the game work better, rather than viewing the world
simply through the eyes of their characters and asking for their characters to do whatever they
instinctively feel their characters would do. So the storygamers mantra is counter-immersive in the
sense that it will tend to weaken players in-character immersion by divorcing them from an incharacter perspective. Though the players may gain a certain creative satisfaction, they may lose the
heightened sense of experiencing the in-game events which immersion in their characters can fuel.
48
So, no mantras of saying yes or rolling dice no straitjackets for the refs decision-making. Even the
rules of the game are only there for the ref to use, abuse or abandon as he sees fit. The grain of
wisdom to be borrowed from storygaming is that the ref should aim to cultivate within himself a
positive and encouraging attitude. One of the worst impressions any ref ever made on me was when
after a session of a game I offered a few random ideas as seeds for thought and he responded by
pompously proclaiming that he never uses players ideas. It was a shame because closedmindedness aside he was an excellent ref. Be open-minded. Be positive. Be encouraging. If you are
unduly negative about your players input, you will simply put them off the game. But ultimately,
making allowances for each players core choices of what character to play and how they want their
character to act, you have to run the game in a way you feel instinctively at ease with. Always.
DOWNTIME
Written downtime feedback is a ubiquitous feature of LARP, but can also be adapted to tabletop
roleplay, though it is less vital there. Downtime feedback is basically a description of what a player
character does between sessions of the game. Usually each player will submit a separate downtime
request or suggestion to the ref, though a joint one is possible. The ref evaluates the players
downtime suggestions together in the context of his broader vision of the game-world then writes
individual feedback for each player. That feedback consists of a narration of what the players PC
gets up to. The purpose of this in LARP is often to deal with the many activities which cannot be
physically represented in a LARPing environment, and tabletop roleplay of course does not pose that
same difficulty. But downtime might be a convenient vehicle to allow the PCs to execute long-term
plans which would not make for great material for a tabletop session, or to explain what happens in
long periods of time which may pass between one major phase of the game and the next.
The danger with downtime feedback is that in narrating the PCs actions extensively the ref may find
that his narration is at odds with the players concept of their character, so the effect can be
counter-immersive. To avoid this, the players downtime submission should be as detailed and
specific as possible with regard to anything which the player sees as fundamental to his vision of the
character. The ref might possibly roll dice to determine some key aspect of the downtime in
accordance with the rules of the game, or even get the player to do so, but downtime is generally
characterised by being decided in the refs purest discretion, albeit with the structure of the games
rules as a guide. Otherwise, in basic principle, the writing of downtime responses is pretty much like
any other aspect of the refs general task of adjudicating upon and narrating the events of the game.
HANDLING PLAYER CHARACTER DISUNITY
Many immersive roleplaying games tend to lead inexorably to the format of a small group of
adventurers together embarking upon a short quest and engaging in skirmish after skirmish. But my
aspiration for the games I ref and play in is that they grow in complexity of events, allowing for a
sense of mystery and suspense to develop as the plot thickens, and then a sense of discovery as the
games secrets unfold. It can also be great fun when intrigue develops among the PCs. These things
often involve player characters going off in different directions for short periods of time. The player
characters will tend to be, or at least appear to be, allies of each other but those alliances may be
loose, transient, uncertain or even illusory. Thats just part of the fun.
Sometimes this means that one or two PCs will be off doing something without the assistance of the
others, even engaging in critical combat without the help of the rest of the group. In that sort of
situation the refs primary response must be to avoid, if he can at all justify doing so, the use of full
and detailed rules for combat. When the player characters are split up, even more so than at other
times, the ref should favour freeform narration of combat or the use of simpler rules which allow for
49
the refs discretion. The key is speed of play so that the encounter can be resolved so quickly that
the other players, who are not immediately involved, do not have the chance to get bored.
In Souls Calling this means taking impressionistic combat as your starting point whenever the PCs
are split up in this manner, even more so than at other times. Of course impressionistic combat
can lead to deadly consequences for PCs, and to determine those consequences you would borrow
a dice-check from the detailed combat system, but generally speaking only one dice-check for each
PC exposed to that risk. Using the detailed rules of combat in a situation where the PCs are not
together would be a matter of last resort, and only if it were going to be truly pivotal to the game.
Working out what happens in critical combat can be time-consuming and, if you must use the full
rules for it, may require your complete attention, so you may have to involve the other players. At a
minimum, an otherwise uninvolved player can act as time-keeper for the combat. Another option is
to assign one or more non-player characters to that player and delegate control over those nonplayer characters to that player for the duration of combat.
You can also delegate control of NPCs for other short and potentially adversarial scenarios, not just
combat. The player given the NPC becomes, briefly, an assistant referee, or a-ref. But beware:- it can
be counter-immersive for the player to be switching characters like this. So dont overdo it.
You dont have to tell your a-ref absolutely everything about the NPCs hes controlling just the bits
relevant for combat or whatever other limited decisions he has to make. Ideally, you may not want
to give away too much about the reasons that the other player characters have for engaging in those
particular scenarios without the rest of the group, not least so that you dont spoil the a-refs fun as
a player. But it can be important to find something for everyone to be doing.
Another useful technique in the context of player character disunity is to use written downtime
feedback as explained above. Players write a summary of what their characters want to do in their
time away from the spotlight, and you give a written response. You can also give handwritten notes
to players during the game, perhaps pre-prepared, and even use them to run mini side-quests.
HANDLING CHEATS
Its shocking how many immature numpties cheat at roleplaying games. Really theyre cheating
themselves more than anyone else. But it neednt really affect anyones enjoyment of the game who
isnt aware of it, as long as the ref actively makes sure that everyone gets a fair share of the limelight
and a decent opportunity to contribute to the game. The cheaters character is just another
phenomenon in the game-world as far as the other players are concerned. Its a black box effect.
Does it really have to matter to the other players whats going on inside the black box which
produces that characters impact on the game-world? The main problem is that often its fairly
obvious that someone has been cheating, even if only because they always report rolling
consistently high numbers on their dice, never run out of arrows and so on. Ultimately you may not
be able to avoid confronting the cheat. But his cheating behaviour is hardly the end of the world.
KEEPING A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE
Please always bear in mind that RPGs are just a game. If you have trouble telling real life apart from
the game or if an obsession with RPGs is negatively affecting your life, you should stop playing and
speak to a medical professional or counsellor. If you are getting worked up about things that happen
in the game, step back and try to get a sense of perspective. You may need a break from the game.
Always remember, its just a game. Its just for fun. Real life has to come first. Always.
50

West, Matt - The Art and Theory of Immersive Roleplay (v1.01)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

West, Matt - The Art and Theory of Immersive Roleplay (v1.01)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ONE TRUE WAY; MOST OF IT IS PROBABLY WRONG ANYWAY AND

I ENJOY. ENJOYING ROLEPLAY

TO PROMOTE HERE IS NOT A

REFLECTS MY EXCESS OF ENTHUSIASM FOR ROLEPLAY IN GENERAL AND IMMERSION IN PARTICULAR.

PARTICULAR WAY, DOES NOT MAKE ANYONE

SWINE OR BRAIN-DAMAGED; ANY ASSERTIONS TO

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

[Her hand raised ] 13 and 20!

[His hand raised ] Not a bad roll!

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

IN-CHARACTER IMMERSION THE NATURE OF THE BEAST

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE AUTHORITATIVE* DEFINITIONS

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

Souls Calling is designed to be an immersive tabletop RPG.

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE POINT OF PLAYING AN IMMERSIVE RPG KEY EXPERIENCES OF PLAY

the real-world experience of a sense of mystery, suspense, intrigue or discovery;

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

the suspension of disbelief, which in turn depends on believability;

a sense of ownership of your character, of having a stake in him, which can be

smooth flow of play which in turn depends on ease of play.

an unpredictable pattern of excitement, discovery and triumphs the rewards of play.

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

IMMERSION AS A VEHICLE TO THE KEY EXPERIENCES OF PLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY

THE ART AND THEORY OF IMMERSIVE ROLEPLAY