1E Immersion VS Thespian Acting

[Canaan]

I think Halivar's photo is neato.

 

[SuStel]

Good acting (what I call "roleplaying") is always good and contributive to immersion, and never IMXP has it detracted from the game.

The trouble is, under no circumstances would Gygax or TSR have called its game an "acting game." The use of "role-playing" in "role-playing game" does not refer to acting. It refers to assuming the decisions and consequences of an imaginary character in an imaginary setting. One can act while one is role-playing, but it is not necessary. Saying "The elf attacks the barkeep; what do I roll?" when you're playing the elf is a part of role-playing. Saying "I, Thalthius the Noble-eared, am insulted by your uncivilized selection of wines! Have at thee!" is (bad) acting.

 

[Crothian]

The trouble is, under no circumstances would Gygax or TSR have called its game an "acting game."

And if it were still 1980 that would matter. But the games have changed quite a lot in the past 25 years

. Saying "The elf attacks the barkeep; what do I roll?" when you're playing the elf is a part of role-playing. Saying "I, Thalthius the Noble-eared, am insulted by your uncivilized selection of wines! Have at thee!" is (bad) acting.

That alone is not bad acting. Acting is a lot more then words. Also, what one group would call bad acting another is going to be having a lot of fun with. This whole thread just seems to boil down to personal choice and gaming with people that you get along with and can stand their gaming style.

 

[diaglo]

That works for me.

take Falstaff in Henry IV.

that PC in itself is the most trite of characters. yet in the play done correctly he is the only PC to actually grow. to show a full range of "character". surely hotspur and henry are but "characicatures".

falstaff is a true PC. the others are but NPCs.

 

[Valiant]

Halivar: "And if it were still 1980 that would matter. But the games have changed quite a lot in the past 25 years",

Thats why the question refers to 1E immersion (and doesn't include 2E or 3E).

I think it's a false dichotomy. Further, I disagree with just about all the characterizations in the OP. His group has probably got some really hammy roleplayers in it, which can be just as annoying as the laconic powergamer.

Good acting (what I call "roleplaying") is always good and contributive to immersion, and never IMXP has it detracted from the game.

And I agree with you Halivar (acting can help with immersion when used properly with the right group of guys). Thats why I was trying to come up with a name for acting that went beyond the normal sort of stuff, that was "over the top"...something that people would understand (thespian actor) which has since been replaced with "over acting" (though I think this lacks flavor).
I could care less what its called. Read the above post about the guy that attacked one of the players as a vampire. Thats way over the top.

As for the term "role playing" yep, it doesn't mean acting at all; it means your assuming the identity of your PC on some level (stepping into his skin, with your own personality) and responding to the environement presented by the DM.

 

[Lanefan]

As for the term "role playing" yep, it doesn't mean acting at all; it means your assuming the identity of your PC on some level (stepping into his skin, with your own personality) and responding to the environement presented by the DM.

Except you run aground on this:

Acting is defined as playing a role.
Role-playing is defined as playing a role.

Therefore, it only follows that acting and role-playing are similar, if not the same. And the more that people "act" in my game the better; at least it shows they're paying attention.

Lane-"the play's the thing"-fan

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm in the camp that says role-playing isn't necessarily about deep character-immersion. I don't mind if my players are using their PCs to put themselves into the game situation, rather than "trying to be their PC." Think of it like Jack Nicholson. He's a riveting actor, but no matter what character he's playing, you always see Jack Nicholson coming out, and everyone is fine with that.

 

[Hussar]

Thespian acting is not my term, I found it here at ENworld some time back (and its bantard around alot on many boards). And I don't suggest that ALL people who thespian act can't or don't enjoy immersion in the game, infact, I just said in the above post likely everyone experiances all 3 aspects to some degree (immersion, tactics, and acting). I'm sure some that prefer immersion to anything else also partake in frequent acting out in a lively fashion. So, if you think I'm trying to imply everyone who thespian acts lacks an ability to imagine or immerse, your incorrect. Another poster compared it to reading a play vs. acting it out. I think thats a fair analogy.

Anyhow, the point of this post was to figure out how they might inter-relate, not to hurt anyones feelings. So my apologies if I have.

I think a better term than "Thespian Acting" which I've never seen before, would be "Amateur Thespianism" I don't think anyone would have a huge problem with Patrick Stewart sitting down at their table and playing. That would be Thespian acting. However, amateur thespians, at their worst, try to turn the entire game into melodrama. Every moment must be played out in full, excrutiating detail. Note, it doesn't have to be this way, but, "Amateur Thespianism" IMO, as a perjorative, means exactly this.

I suppose different people play D&D for different (primary) reasons (though everyone likely experiances some satisfaction in all of these aspects). Some play for the immersion experiance (that would be me), some for tactics, some to generate and build their PC (mostly a 3E phenomina) and some play to thespian act (which can be annoying depending on how its done).

Nice 3e is for munchkins dig.

The funny thing is, back in the day when I played 1e and Basic/Expert D&D, there was no "immersion". Our characters were Bob the Fighter and Bob's Brother the Fighter. They happily mass murdered their way through dungeon after dungeon, without a single thought to the setting or anything else. Down time was entirely glossed over, the only NPC's we talked to were the ones who were giving us our next marching orders to the next dungeon and the "campaign setting" was pretty much just a cloth backdrop with a couple of paper decorations.

Not that everyone played that way mind you. Of course not. Some played like Valiant, and that's fine. But, to say that 1e was all about deep immersion is ludicrous. The idea of "deep immersion" didn't come out until years later. The game was a short step away from a wargame in the early days. You took your playing piece and killed stuff until you died or retired. And then you took another playing piece out of the box and did it again.

Trying to set up this dichotomy that "1e players were all about role playing and later editions about roll playing" is a bloody stale old joke.

 

[Crothian]

Halivar: "And if it were still 1980 that would matter. But the games have changed quite a lot in the past 25 years",

Thats why the question refers to 1E immersion (and doesn't include 2E or 3E).

1e of 2007 is different from 1e of 1980 and so our its players and DMs.

 

[Valiant]

Except you run aground on this:

Acting is defined as playing a role.
Role-playing is defined as playing a role.

Therefore, it only follows that acting and role-playing are similar, if not the same. And the more that people "act" in my game the better; at least it shows they're paying attention.

Lane-"the play's the thing"-fan

I'm not interested in the Websters definition of Role-playing, I'm stating what I believe Gygax meant by it. I have heard time and again role play was really the wrong terminology to use. True "role play" comes out of psychology, and has to do with thing like switching places with your daughter and "having it out". That is both acting and immersion and supposedly, lets you know how the other person feels.

I also agree that the goal is not nec. to "become" your PC (like a method actor) rather your PC is a way to experiance this fantasy world. You know your "role playing" when a bar keep asks your character something and you respond in some way. You take on the identity of individual pieces (unlike typical war games).