D&D 5E Do you let PC's just *break* objects?

[Maxperson]

Can we drop this? You're definition does not match up to anything I've ever read, from what I've read as a layman my analogy was accurate. It also doesn't matter one bit.

When I play D&D I don't metagame because I try to inhabit my character. I'm attempting to not just mimic what the character would do, I'm actually attempting (poorly, of course) to immerse myself in that character. If you say that it's impossible to call any RPing method acting so be it.

Method acting is immersing yourself in the role. Thinking as the role thinks. Acting as the role acts. And so on. If a PC doesn't know something but the player does and the players acts for the PC without using the player's knowledge, that's close to method acting.

 

[greg kaye]

What do you mean by toughness? Skill in parrying and dodging blows? Getting lucky? Having a god help you out and cause a miss? Physical toughness? All of the above?

You have killed 6 goblins and have become MEASURABLY, harder to kill.

I could imagine 5e characters trying to envision the lives of players and wondering how we could know about things like cholesterol levels, BMI indexes etc.
Characters immersed in the worlds of D&D may be very familiar with things like level jumps, acquisition of hit points, and the trading of hit dice over a short rest. These are the things that they live with and with which they may have become very familiar.

 

[Maxperson]

You have killed 6 goblins and have become MEASURABLY, harder to kill.

By what measure? And remember, harder to kill =/= hit points.

 

[greg kaye]

By what measure? And remember, harder to kill =/= hit points.

Are you inferring I might have forgotten?
A first-level fighter has 10 hp, not counting any con mod.
At second-level that same fighter has 16 hp,
Purely in terms of taking damage, the minimum of damage (from any source) needed to kill them would have jumped up 60%.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you inferring I might have forgotten?
A first-level fighter has 10 hp, not counting any con mod.
At second-level that same fighter has 16 hp,
Purely in terms of taking damage, the minimum of damage (from any source) needed to kill them would have jumped up 60%.

And the 2nd level fighter will also often have better armor and will have better abilities, which also makes them harder to kill. No way for the PC to differentiate between types of harder to kill. Hit points are undetectable as such since there's no way to determine why the PC is harder to kill other than skill, items, etc., which don't equate to hit points.

 

[Charlaquin]

Method acting is immersing yourself in the role. Thinking as the role thinks. Acting as the role acts. And so on. If a PC doesn't know something but the player does and the players acts for the PC without using the player's knowledge, that's close to method acting.

If the PC doesn’t know something but the player does and the player acts as they imagine the PC would without that knowledge, what they’re doing is the Meisner technique. The Meisner technique is an evolution of Stanislavsky’s system, but it’s distinctly different, in that it involves drawing from analogous experiences to the character’s to approximate the character’s reaction, as opposed to the original Stanislavskyian method of trying to actually reproduce the character’s experience.

As the professor I learned the Meisner technique from put it: Stanislavsky would have said you can’t effectively portray a prostitute if you’ve never turned a trick, whereas Meisner would advise you to think back to a time when you felt like a w**** to inform your portrayal of a prostitute. Translating that to D&D, Stanislavsky would say you can’t act like you’ve never fought a troll before if you have in fact fought a troll, whereas Meisner would advise you to think back to the first time you fought a troll to inform your roleplaying when your character is fighting a troll for their first time.

 

[Maxperson]

If the PC doesn’t know something but the player does and the player acts as they imagine the PC would without that knowledge, what they’re doing is the Meisner technique. The Meisner technique is an evolution of Stanislavsky’s system, but it’s distinctly different, in that it involves drawing from analogous experiences to the character’s to approximate the character’s reaction, as opposed to the original Stanislavskyian method of trying to actually reproduce the character’s experience.

As the professor I learned the Meisner technique from put it: Stanislavsky would have said you can’t effectively portray a prostitute if you’ve never turned a trick, whereas Meisner would advise you to think back to a time when you felt like a w**** to inform your portrayal of a prostitute. Translating that to D&D, Stanislavsky would say you can’t act like you’ve never fought a troll before if you have in fact fought a troll, whereas Meisner would advise you to think back to the first time you fought a troll to inform your roleplaying when your character is fighting a troll for their first time.

That's pretty cool, but not how actors use method acting. If they did, then most method actors aren't actually method actors since they learn the role and then live it(except that they don't really. They aren't going to actually turn tricks, but instead talk to a bunch of prostitutes to learn what they need to know) to get the method down.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's pretty cool, but not how actors use method acting. If they did, then most method actors aren't actually method actors since they learn the role and then live it(except that they don't really. They aren't going to actually turn tricks, but instead talk to a bunch of prostitutes to learn what they need to know) to get the method down.

Yeah, “method acting” is a pretty vague term, since a lot of techniques that were developed as adaptations of Stanislavsky’s system try to claim the title. It’s much more meaningful to say who’s techniques one ascribes to.

That said, I would disagree that most actors who call themselves “method actors” don’t try to actually live the role. I mean, that’s where the stories of actors going to extreme lengths like remaining in character through the entire filming process (even when doing so causes problems interacting with the rest of the cast and crew) come from. There’s a particularly famous case where, during the filming of Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman didn’t sleep for 72 hours in preparation for a scene where his character likewise had been awake for three days. Allegedly when his costar Laurence Olivier learned of this, he said to Hoffman, “My boy, why don’t you just try acting?”

I think, if we were to use acting as an analogy for RPGs, Oofta and others who advocate for simply trusting players to not use OOC information rather than taking steps to avoid the players gaining that information in the first place seem to me to be in Laurence’s shoes, telling folks like myself “my girl, why don’t you just try roleplaying?”

 

[Lanefan]

Which is absolutely fine, it’s just not analogous to method acting.

You’re the one who compared it to method acting and then tried to defend that analogy when I pointed out that it’s inaccurate.

Well, if full immersion to the point of thinking as your character rather than yourself isn't method acting (albeit unscripted), then what is it?

 

[Lanefan]

What do you mean by toughness? Skill in parrying and dodging blows? Getting lucky? Having a god help you out and cause a miss? Physical toughness? All of the above?

All those and more - i.e. whatever it takes to, on average, stay upright longer than the other guy.