How do you roleplay? --- Avatar character vs. narrative subject character [+]

[Lanefan]

Some jargon that boils down to making the other players (and the GM is a player too) look good and shine at what their characters are doing.

If they tell an inspiring speech, your PC is inspired. Your roleplay validates their intentions even if they are looking for some dramatic tragedy where your character may be boo-ing them.

So the equivalent to, in WWE-style wrestling, putting your opponent over - making him (or her) look good and by so doing enhancing the entertainment value of the show you're putting on.

 

[Kannik]

As others have also noted, for me it depends on the game/genre we're playing in.

There are games where I get very much the mode of "method-acting" roleplay where I get fully subsumed by the character and the situation, including attitude, mannerisms, and speech. (Even going so far to inadvertently ask the GM a question in the same way my character would talk...)

For other games, especially those with rules and modes of play that emphasize them, I'm more separated, letting the game's impetus (and sometimes suggestions from other players) guide things. It always remains true to the fiction and to the character*, but it's less extemporaneous and narrowly focused to the character's immediate perceptions and allows bringing in grander arcs and considerations.

I don't think I prefer one more than the other, they're both awesome in their own right and create excellent fun and excitement and cool/satisfying stories**. I love the variety in how we get to play the games and the variety in how we get to play the roles.

* (it's a huge peeve of mine how many modern blockbusters have characters wildly vacillate from scene to scene, completely subservient to the moment at hand that the director thinks will be 'cool' but never to the grander narrative as a whole nor the characters as real sapient entities.)

** (I now feel compelled whenever I use story on this site to point out this does not mean that the thing is pre-written and forced upon the players/the GM/anyone at all, nor is it purely dissasociated meta-whatever. This is the story that is emerging through play that the group can recount later, irrespective of the method of play.)

 

[bsss]

** (I now feel compelled whenever I use story on this site to point out this does not mean that the thing is pre-written and forced upon the players/the GM/anyone at all, nor is it purely dissasociated meta-whatever. This is the story that is emerging through play that the group can recount later, irrespective of the method of play.)

Quoted in emphatic agreement and to point out that whenever I refer to the narrative or the story here, it is absolutely that which is born out of playing the game with a collaborative group.

Incidentally to this topic, and in line with some other replies, I too do not spend much of any time on elaborate backstories regardless of avatar/narrative subject approach. A theme, a vibe, and go, allowing for flashbacks or similar is my preferred approach there.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Quoted in emphatic agreement and to point out that whenever I refer to the narrative or the story here, it is absolutely that which is born out of playing the game with a collaborative group.

And just as a counterpoint to your absolutely correct way of potentially playing (merely so that readers can see what both sides of the "narrative"/"story" coin are)... whenever I refer to narrative or story it is referring to what is happening in the campaign world that is occurring regardless of whether the PCs are there or not. These events are occurring on their own in the background, which may or may not be affected by the PCs (depending on whether the players choose to have their characters go to these areas/events/situations). If the PCs are not there to affect what happens, then the narrative/story potentially unfolds on its own and then later on there's potential for the PCs to see / experience this new world state that happened while they were off doing something else.

This is most evident when I run games that include lots of pre-written adventure modules or the hardcover campaign book. These are written with narrative and story happening as part of the text of the book. Even if the PCs never play them or only encounter parts of these modules... there's no reason why I won't suggest that the events of these modules aren't still occurring if I think it makes for an interesting change of the campaign world should the PCs ever return back here later on.

Neither way is right or wrong... but both sides of the "narrative" coin do exist and various DMs may focus on one or the other as they build their worlds.

 

[aramis erak]

And just as a counterpoint to your absolutely correct way of potentially playing (merely so that readers can see what both sides of the "narrative"/"story" coin are)... whenever I refer to narrative or story it is referring to what is happening in the campaign world that is occurring regardless of whether the PCs are there or not. These events are occurring on their own in the background, which may or may not be affected by the PCs (depending on whether the players choose to have their characters go to these areas/events/situations). If the PCs are not there to affect what happens, then the narrative/story potentially unfolds on its own and then later on there's potential for the PCs to see / experience this new world state that happened while they were off doing something else.

This is most evident when I run games that include lots of pre-written adventure modules or the hardcover campaign book. These are written with narrative and story happening as part of the text of the book. Even if the PCs never play them or only encounter parts of these modules... there's no reason why I won't suggest that the events of these modules aren't still occurring if I think it makes for an interesting change of the campaign world should the PCs ever return back here later on.

Neither way is right or wrong... but both sides of the "narrative" coin do exist and various DMs may focus on one or the other as they build their worlds.

I don't think it a 2-sided coin, but really a triangular space... the resulting story can be by cooperative intentional storytelling, or by prior plotting, or by emerging from processes of play other than intentional storycrafting...

Then again, I also enjoy RPG-as-minis-wargame.

 

[Kannik]

This is most evident when I run games that include lots of pre-written adventure modules or the hardcover campaign book. These are written with narrative and story happening as part of the text of the book. Even if the PCs never play them or only encounter parts of these modules... there's no reason why I won't suggest that the events of these modules aren't still occurring if I think it makes for an interesting change of the campaign world should the PCs ever return back here later on.

Neither way is right or wrong... but both sides of the "narrative" coin do exist and various DMs may focus on one or the other as they build their worlds.

Great point! I should clarify that by "pre-written and forced upon" I don't mean something like an adventure path/modules or a scenario/world/events set in motion type game (quite the contrary, as every game I run is very much in that vein and is often also a published module). I still see those as being part of the collaborative creation space: the GM has a world/scenario running, and the characters are interacting with it.

By "pre-written and forced upon" I intended to address the 'concern' some seem to have whenever the word "story" enters a post to automatcially mean a game that is playing through a GM's pre-concieved novel, with the players forced into specific situations, solutions, narrative beats, and needing to effectively pixel-b their way forward at every moment.

 

[Clint_L]

I find the terminology in the poll really confusing, but when I RP a character I RP as the character while we're in story, but we're often breaking out of the story, cracking jokes, adding commentary, whatever. So it's not like serious business all the time, or method acting. When speaking in character I try to speak as the character would, and I try to only act according to what they would know and what their worldview is.

 

[Marc17]

As far as I can tell, it varies back and for depending on how I feel, the scene, if we are in character or not, etc. Never paid attention to it and just use whatever seems it fits for the moment. Doesn't help that people in my gaming circles have used Avatar to mean you are playing yourself for decades now, your RL self transcribed as a character in the games rules. Various methods are used to create those characters.