1E Immersion VS Thespian Acting

[Doug McCrae]

I've never experienced anyone taking the acting side of things too far for my taste. Though I have experienced @sshattery such as attacking the other PCs or being otherwise uncooperative justified by the "I was just roleplaying my character" excuse. Is that what you're talking about, Valiant?

 

[maddman75]

"I was just roleplaying my character"

I'll put that one up there with "That's what my character would do" and "But I have to because my alignment is X" with the best excuses for acting like a jerk.

I see what Valiant is saying, I've never had a bad experience with people acting too much. It generally adds to the game and is infectious. But then many of the people I game with actually are actors, involved with community theater and such. But they see acting and RPGs as different hobbies.

Since this isn't universal, maybe you could share some stories of people acting too much taking away from everyone's fun. Is it simple spotlight hogging?

 

[diaglo]

Since this isn't universal, maybe you could share some stories of people acting too much taking away from everyone's fun. Is it simple spotlight hogging?

and this one time at D&D camp...


the boyfriend of one of the new gamers put fake vampire teeth in his mouth and attempted to bite the DM.

he was supposed to be "watching". as his girlfriend was actually playing.

 

[Mythmere1]

I think it totally depends on the group. Sometimes the fun stems from acting like the character, but sometimes when you're trying to get from one place to another or get into an exciting combat too much play acting becomes a huge irritation. The worst is when different players aren't on the same frequency one night: we had one infamous game where two players wanted to go shopping for cool clothes and other stuff, and to roleplay their conversations, while another player wanted to get on with fun combats. My players got close to a shouting match about it. That's a no-win situation. It all comes down in the end to pacing the action.

There's no question that if one player is hogging the spotlight to the detriment of everyone else's fun, it's the DM's job to rein him in. Also, if a player is trying to have conversations with NPCs just for the sake of "the fantasy world," that player needs to be reined in if the rest of the party is getting bored and wants to move on. If the DM insists that NPC conversations about the latest fashions in Th'Mirkalan as opposed to N'Tar are mandatory for the campaign ... and the players are getting bored because they want to at least fight an orc, then the DM is out of step with the players and the group needs to fix things up. Same if the DM wants everyone to speak in character and the players don't want to.

The game is wide-open enough to support a whole spectrum of play, from the almost purely tactical to something that's got very little action and lots of "interaction" with the fantasy world. Neither end of the spectrum is "wrong," but if you get into a group that operates out of your comfort zone you're going to have a really crappy gaming session. That doesn't mean you're wrong and they're right, but it does mean that you don't fit in with that group unless you're willing to bend toward the type of game they play. If you get a new player who "acts" too much for everyone else or who's embarrassed to "act" as much as everyone else does, it's the job of the new player to fit in and become a member of the group in a way that promotes fun gaming. If an embarrassed player truly can't handle a high-acting game, or an actor keeps overacting in a group that sticks to lower-key roleplaying, the group has to decide how to handle the disconnect caused by the new player.

 

[T. Foster]

The annoyance for me came from the implied (and sometimes explicit) value judgment from "thespian actor" type players that they were playing correctly and I was playing incorrectly ("rollplaying" is usually what they'd say) and that "immersion" and "roleplaying" are wholly synonymous with thespian acting. This attitude was very prevalent in the late 80s through the 90s, to the point that I felt like a virtual pariah outside of my own core gaming-group (and even then when we'd invite outsiders to play with us the results were almost invariably disastrous).

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

The annoyance for me came from the implied (and sometimes explicit) value judgment from "thespian actor" type players that they were playing correctly and I was playing incorrectly ("rollplaying" is usually what they'd say) and that "immersion" and "roleplaying" are wholly synonymous with thespian acting. This attitude was very prevalent in the late 80s through the 90s, to the point that I felt like a virtual pariah outside of my own core gaming-group (and even then when we'd invite outsiders to play with us the results were almost invariably disastrous).

The truth is, a non-narrativist player can get in character in an exaggerated way [thespian acting] for the sake of humor, not once taking it at face value [immersion] where it isn't 100% required. Also, a hyper-immersive player can get immersed, figuratively seeing the world of the game through the eyes of the character, without method acting.

Playing 'correctly' means playing cooperatively with the DM and the other players, and that should be enough 90% of the time. The sooner they learn that your way of RPing isn't exactly crimethink [and neither is theirs], the better.

 

[JustinM]

I played with a girl one time who would actually appear to be meditating in order to get completely into her character. Theater chick--strange bird. She didn't last too long for a number of reasons.

 

[WayneLigon]

Would you agree with these definitions? I realize in 2E immersion seems to change in meaning, and then again in 3E, thats why I've limited it to 1E (and OD&D as well I suppose).

I wouldn't nessesarily agree with them, nor would I confine them to 1E; roleplaying didn't change with 1E, 2E or 3E - indeed, it doesn't change if you're playing GURPS, Harn, Rifts, D&D or FATE. Roleplaying is roleplaying.

I would just say 'Roleplaying' contains elements of both those definitions. I wouldn't say you have to act out everything in 1rst person (that gets really old really quick) but there must be some degree of distancing involved ie, acting; the PC shouldn't be an exact copy of the player's personality. He should strive to create and maintain differences. Not great differences, perhaps, but something that tells me I'm interacting with Culaan the archer and not Bob the accountant.

 

[Valiant]

I'm speaking of immersion rather then role play. The focus (or culture?) changed from edition to edition. 1E is very PC/action focused (doing whatever the hell you want to do. Wondering around and creating the story as you go). 2E immersion was this but favored getting into the DMs story (ie railroad to some). 3E was like 1E but immersion came to include a detailed understanding of your PCs abilities (skills and feats). This system is so complex regarding this that just the building process alone (the aspect of shaping your character as you advance) is its own sort of Immersion. At least thats how I see it. Its hard to describe in words what I mean. But there are suttle differences between what immersion seems to cover between systems.

 

[brehobit]

I've never experienced anyone taking the acting side of things too far for my taste. Though I have experienced @sshattery such as attacking the other PCs or being otherwise uncooperative justified by the "I was just roleplaying my character" excuse. Is that what you're talking about, Valiant?

See,
This I actually _like_. I don't want PC-on-PC combat, but I _really_ like it when the PCs have cross purposes.

I've had this happen a lot. Party members who don't get along or try to screw each other. If it's done in character it can be great fun. Lets see.

#1 Conan-ish game. One PC was the "boss" and the rest hired help. We got into an impossible to win fight (2nd ed, needed magic weapons to do damage, didn't have any) and ran. Boss used my character as bait for the baddy so he could snag the desired loot. (Cast levitate on me and used me as monster bait). Everyone else fled. I took shots at the boss with a bow and he dropped the spell (and me). Ran back to the boat and claimed he was dead. He turned up later (flight) and much roleplaying happened (and my character ended up in the brig I believe).

#2 One former player in our group played an NPC as a one-shot PC for a game. He was a member of the evil cult we'd been fighting, but he managed to get us to believe he had a special power over the "baddy of the day" we needed to kill. Turned out he didn't really have anything up his sleeve. The "neutral" party members managed to kill him after the quest had finished, much to the surprise of the "good" party members (and their players too.) While not really a "PC" per se, it was an allied NPC who was played by a fellow player.

Two of the most memoriable games I've every played. Much fun.

At it's best, D&D isn't a team game. It can be. But the characters should all be individuals with their own motivations. And depending on different things, that might cause inter-party conflict. In a "good" party, that should rarely result in bloodshed.