Immersion

Mix of 2 and 1. Method acting. I become my character and just play 'myself'.

>the action that makes most sense for the character wouldn't be the same as the action most rewarded by the system.
I don't see a problem with this. Internal consistency requires that some options be more optimal than others, like a rifle giving you an objective advantage over a knife in a one on one fight.

And that's your playstyle preference. Other people prefer systems designed more around genre conventions than that kind of real world logic, where acting in character and in theme with the world or the genre is rewarded over what might be the IRL efficient option.

>method acting
Disgusting.

But I still don't see what "wanting to play a character" and "wanting internal consistency to fly out the window" have in common, as choice #1 would imply. And again, it's not about IRL efficiency, but internal consistency - something that someone who is looking to express a character would want.

Nothing about option #1 necessitates a lack of internal consistency. It's just internal consistency with a different basis and set of priorities.

Some people don't like to have their characters attempt to talk things out (even if that really is what they would do), because the particular system only punishes them for doing so.

I don't think any of those really have anything to do with immersion.
Immersion has more to do with a reasonable progression of events and consequences along with setting pieces that fit the tone of the established settings.

Midpoint between 1 and 2.

The statement "no tension between doing what's in character and doing what's mechanically optimal" implies that the whims and decisions of your character can never be less than optimal. So if it were in character to bring a knife to a gun fight, that knife should be equally as powerful as a gun for no reason other than "it's what my character would do."
That may not be the idea you're trying to convey, but that's what the statement means.

And the system shouldn't actively punish a perfectly valid solution, but making the action of talking things through always be the optimal solution just because it's what your character would do is ridiculous.

And in a certain kind of game, that makes sense. An action movie hero whose gimmick is using a knife is more than able to take down gun wielding opponents with ease, and it's perfectly consistent within the genre and the expectations we have of action movie heroes.

ive got your immersion right here.

definitely 1, but optimization be damned i'm here to have fun.

I think that it's more that in that "knife to a gunfight" scenario there should be a way to work around it - basically, a character with a knife in a gunfight heavy setting would be some sort of stealth specialist, possibly one who's also very light on his feet. I think what they're getting at. If you decide to base yourself on the "knife to a gunfight", there should be a way you're not heavily penalized, some form of niche you can fit in and still be useful - very common in things like Cyberpunk games, where there's generally a "hacker" of sorts or one dude who sets the deals between the bigwigs and the party.

1

This. There should be no consideration of separation from your character and yourself. You become the character and make decisions as that character would. Do not look at it as being an actor in a part, you are a completely different person when in character, and your decisions and reactions should reflect that.

Yeah, the last thing you want to do when portraying another person is ACT.

In my experience, in practical terms this doesn't work. It can lead to really unintuitive, awkward or disruptive events as people just play their characters with no consideration whatsoever for the context and the rest of the group. Character is key, I'd never dispute that, but remaining aware of the situation and being willing to compromise is important for being a functional member of a group.

This doesn't mean you're acting out of character- People are complicated, and there are many different ways you can react to or approach a situation. Keeping OOC context in mind to select the IC response that fits best with the character while also being appropriate to the needs of the scene, the group or the story is at the heart of great roleplaying.

At least, for my group. Roleplay is very much a style thing, making absolute statements about the best/right way to do anything is rather misguided.

explain yourself

This. If I want immersion, I can read a book or listen to a concept album. I play games for gameplay.

Rules of a system are like physical laws. If your character concept requires you to do something which is suboptimal (e.g. a Wizard who wants to stab people instead of turning them into squirrels) then you're playing a character who is knowingly handicapping themselves.

Some people like that. I don't really.

While I do kinda get you, that's a pretty bad example. Almost every fantasy system has some degree of support for a sword wizard of one kind or another.

4. I am a power gamer. My character does what's the most effective at whatever I'm trying to accomplish without impinging on the fun of others at the table. I prefer taking actions that most closely fit the rules of the game. Essentially, I take the best choices in the game and then build the best story I can around that.

Honestly I think the best way to play the game is as an author-actor. At any point in the game I am aware that there are many things my character MIGHT do; I pick the best choice after taking gameplay/story into consideration.

... it's an immersion blender.

You misunderstand, I don't mean you shouldn't play the role of another person, but I meant don't consciously treat it as acting, if that makes any sense...

This gets my support as well. It's all about the rules

Well I don't feel very immersed in either Veeky Forums or Veeky Forums, so it's doing a shitty job.

Tg can't cook anything that doesn't involve bacon or ground beef

This thread is about Badwrongfun already, isn't it?

None of these. I lean towards nr. 1, but I don't set my character's personalities in stone and then try to live up to that, rather I come up with something I think seems promising, but then often end up taking it in a different and improvised direction as opportunities present themselves. That also makes me less likely to fall into the, uh, pitfall (can you say that? Is that a thing you're allowed to say?) of becoming problematically uncompromising in situations where "how my character would act" would be... problematic.

What about /d/ ?

I'm the GM.

In Soviet /d/, /d/ickgirl get immersed in you

I think too many people try to treat D&D like it's #3 and it's really, really not

I've come to believe it's why so many D&D fans defend the rules of 3.PF and claim they're perfect- They never actually use them, they just take vague inspiration from them and roll dice because it's fun.

They're a sizeable minority in my experience, but you can generally tell the difference between ones who actually understand and enjoy the game, since they'll often share common houserules and acknowledge busted mechanics, vs the ones who claim that combat maneuvers work perfectly or that caster supremacy isn't a thing.

>3.PF combat maneuvers
FUCKING HOW DO THEY WORK?!

3, because I AM in freeform RPs instead

The trend I'm seeing here is that Veeky Forums's sense of immersion has nothing to do with what the player does, but everything to do with the systems mechanics and the execution of the setting, which makes most sense to me.

But those things are intimately linked? Rules only exist in how players use them, and in a sense settings only exist in how players interact with and experience them.

nobody knows, just sort of make up what you want your fighter to do and hope that the DM is feeling generous. such is D&D

4. You and your character are separate entities but you get immersed by seeing them interact with the world around themselves because you care about their struggles and wish to see them succeed.

Think about it like this. You are a parent and your character is your child. Every parent out there wants their child to succeed but you also gotta remember that your child has their own motivations that may be completely divorced from what you want them to be.

If you care too much, you end up with snowflakes who never mature or learn to go beyond their own limitations. If you don't care enough, you just end up with murderhobos who will lash out at the world because they feel as though they have nothing to lose.

So for any healthy character, you need to learn to raise them to the point of almost-neglect so they learn to grow and mature on their own, while also knowing when to step in once it's clear that they're in over their head.

That is when true immersion is reached.

Flamer Throwers are the best anti-air weapon in 40k as of late due to ill-thought rules.
If you were making a thematic anti-air army, you wouldn't be giving them flame throwers now would you?