Immersion, Stance, and Playstyle Discussion

[Desdichado]

Having these two concurrent threads is a bit awkward. I responded to the original thread but feel silly cross-posting to this one now. Sweeney, how would you like to handle this?

mythusmage gets all bent out of shape if any discussion goes on in his thread that isn't a direct answer to his question and nothing more.

IMO, his thread is best ignored other than to cast your vote if it applies to you--this is the place for some real discussion.

 

[TonyLB]

I don't want to turn this thread from it's (very productive!) purpose... but when I hear people saying "Oh, I find Author stance very natural, and use it whenever it suits my purpose," or "Well, I totally prefer Actor stance, it just feels better," I wonder... What game systems are you using?

So if anyone thinks that (say) their comfort with Author stance and their long-time play of Dogs in the Vineyard are linked, that'd be interesting. Conversely, if they want to say that they're all about the Author stance because V:tR lends itself to it so naturally, that would be fascinating too!

 

[Desdichado]

It doesn't matter what system I use; it's my instinctive way of roleplaying regardless of system.

Besides, I hardly ever play anything not d20.

 

[Rel]

An interesting discussion and one that I don't usually give much thought to.

I'd say that I tend toward the "Actor's Stance" in that I try to make decisions for my PC based on what that character's goals and motivations are as opposed to what the best tactical or strategic considerations are (from an in or out of game perspective). But I say this with the caveat that I enjoy tactics and strategy and therefore I tend to play characters who give at least moderate weight to these considerations. In other words, I tend to play a relatively narrow set of personas and I've never regarded myself as a particularly good roleplayer.

Oddly enough, this only really applies to me when I'm a player. When I'm a GM (which is a goodly portion of the time), I'm able to divorce myself from thinking tactically or strategically when those are not motivating factors for the NPC or monster at hand. I do my very best to play my smart guys smart and my dumb guys dumb and I think I do a credible job at it. However, I think there is a bit of a tendency for my major bad guys to fall into the smart (i.e. tactical and strategic thinking) mold. I don't consider this to be a major flaw because Evil Masterminds don't tend to be be dummies. But I do recognize this a being a potential area for things to become boring and repetitive so I try and consciously switch it up once in a while by having a BBEG who is a stupid ox.

All of that said, I've started to recognize the value in "Author Stance" play. One of my players is very good at this and makes decisions based on "What makes for the best story" as opposed to always "What my character would do". I think that so long as the actions are plausible within the character's personality and not totally averse to his worldview, this can make for a more enjoyable game and certainly one that flows smoother. I can't begin to count the number of times that we've had the game derailed by one player or another saying, "My character would not go on this adventure because he would rather be pursuing personal goal XYZ."

 

[fusangite]

Shameless Cross-Post

Yeah, I know. I hope mythusmage doesn't think I'm trying to steal his thunder. I think he wanted to restrict his thread to "what's your stance, and why", so I thought it would be courteous to start a new thread for discussion of the various pros and cons. It may not work out.

I'm thinking maybe the "I don't see my style as "distancing" me from my character" discussion might be more appropriate over here, but it's your call.

Okay then, here's a cross-post of what I said there:

I'm not a story-focused player. But I'm not immersive either. I guess in the Edwards terminology, which I don't actually see as that helpful, I'm still a simulationist but I have a different idea of the knowability of my character and the world.

I can't get immersed in my character because I don't really know enough about him. There are things about his culture and events that have happened in his life that are written-up by me or the GM and there are events that have happened to him during the time we've played but it's a pretty small fraction of the whole character. Then there are the rules, things like knowledge skills, that allow me to approximate knowledge my characters has but I don't. Ultimately, though, my character is someone I get to know over the course of a campaign; much of my play isn't so much immersing myself in the character as it is about discovering who my character is. (Just as my play generally is more about discovering the nature of the world rather than imposing on it my own idea of what it is or should be.)

The characters I play are alien people from different cultures that I use my playing time to learn about. When I have to make a decision on my character's behalf, I make the best guess I can using his understanding of history and culture (background), personal experience (the previous play) and physics (the rules) as to what this fellow would do in this situation. That decision then becomes part of my information about the character and helps me to deduce more about what kind of guy he is the next time he has to make a decision.

I think the idea of immersion is premised on a level of knowability that, in my particular style of gaming, our characters don't really possess.

I've seen immersion be used to good effect in games, though. For some people, "getting into character" can give them access to the thoughts, feelings and values of their character on an emotional and intuitive level. For me, that is not a very effective way of knowing usually; my ways of knowing are more abstract and less experiential; but for some it is, and I encourage those individuals to play that way. That's not to say I'm not good at "acting" my character; but I'm not "feeling" my character when I do so.

I don't see my style as "distancing" me from my character. My character and I start out far apart; I'm a human whereas he's an abstract construct centred on some numbers; I'm real and he's not; I'm from a modern society and he is not, etc. I think every playing style is essentially trying to solve the problem: "How do I bridge the gap between my character and myself?" For some, immersion works; for others, different tactics must be used.

 

[fusangite]

For the above reasons, I'm not sure any of the Edwards stances really fits me. Author stance, I would argue, tends to be attached to creative agendas built around the Story Now priority, which I certainly do not have. I'm not interested in intentional directed production of story during play but rather consequential production thereof.

I guess actor stance comes nearer the mark except that almost none of the assumed attributes of actor stance apply to me. My play is abstract and non-immersive; my characters' priorities are better described as deduced not imagined; etc.

 

[James Heard]

I'd say that you were really just acting your characters as pawns, albiet well thought out pawns and not the ridiculous end of the scale where it's all just a series of die rolls and numbers on a page.

 

[barsoomcore]

Interesting points, fu, and which triggered the following thoughts in my head:

Perhaps part of your stance is predicated upon the assumption (which you make KNOWING it's actually false) that the character exists already but is not known to you -- that is, their traits and personality are not things which you craft but things which you discover as best you can (I know, that's pretty much exactly what you said, but bear with me).

This assumption (fascinating in its anti-rational nature) makes for an interesting light in which to study the Stances defined in this thread.

The Pawn stance, for instance, requires sufficient knowledge of the character in order to employ that character in assorted strategies. It follows, however, from the "fusangite assumption" (I'm going to make that term standard terminology if it kills me) that any such employment of a character is likely to end up non-optimal since so much of the character is unknown.

Well, sort of. The Pawn stance (in it's most extreme form) requires so shallow an understanding of the character that it's probably not a big deal. Onwards.

The Actor Stance seems at first to be deeply problematic for those who operate under this assumption. How can you "play" a character whose basic nature is unknown to you? From what vantage point, if you are playing the character, can you observe the character in order to discover its nature? Can one observe and act simultaneously?

But on consideration I don't see why not. We do that ourselves, don't we? I mean, I wouldn't say I have a perfect grasp of MY own nature, so why would I have such a grasp of my character's? My own personality is something I have discovered over the years (often to my deep and bitter disappointment). So perhaps the Actor stance isn't as problematic as it seems -- in fact, it becomes MORE "realistic" or "deep" if you adopt the fusangite assumption.

How about the Author stance? Well, in my mind this stance isn't, let us say, mutually incompatible with either of the other two stances. That is, one can make choices on a "story" level (which is certainly something I do) while still operating within a Pawn or Actor stance (at least, the Actor stance that's been redefined to be self-observant as above).

Again, isn't this something people do every day with their "real" characters? I know I've often done things because they seemed more exciting, more likely to turn into interesting stories. I got my English degree and narrowed my choices down to teaching in Japan or going to law school. I chose Japan because it seemed more likely to turn my life into an interesting story.

Well, that, and I met some lawyers.

So I don't see that the Actor and Author stances are incompatible -- a realisation I came to when considering how the fusangite assumption (is it working yet?) intersected with the Sweeney Stances (huh? huh?). You can be taking an Actor stance, be immersing yourself in your character, and STILL be making story decisions or discovering your character's inner nature as play proceeds. In fact, maybe it's arguable that if you AREN'T doing those sorts of things, you aren't taking a very interesting position on the Actor stance...

 

[mythusmage]

Sweeny Todd,

What thunder? Sparking conversations are my goal in life, even at a remove.

As to immersion et al.:

You get right down to it, a better term is acting. When you role play you are acting. And theories of acting are many and varied. How do you become the character? To what degree do you become the character? Do you stay in character even 'off stage', or only when 'on stage'.

In my short time in the theater I learned how to take on the role. To, in a sense, become the character I was playing. It pretty much involved coming up with a vision of what the character was like based on his lines in the script. After each performance I went through a period of decompression in which I returned to myself. It helps if you are comfortable with yourself and with your companions. A formal setting such as a stage or sound lot where role assumption is accepted helps a lot there.

I have the feeling a number of people who dislike acting do so because they don't feel comfortable doing it. To them it means a loss of self control, and loss of the self. Which it doesn't. You remain you even when engaged in an emotionally intense scene. When you get right down to it, no matter what role you're playing you're playing yourself with a few changes. As you see yourself as that sort of person in that sort of situation. How would you act if you were a lady shaman negotiating with an annoyed dragon? What would you do were you a paladin hired to babysit colicky baby kobolds?

In theater there are two factors encouraging acting. The acting tradition itself, and the present of a director who encourages acting from his cast. In RPGs what could take their place?

The GM could. By first providing a safe environment where the players can relax. The players themselves can help their by getting to know and become comfortable with their fellow players. Second, the GM would help encourage acting by his presentation of his setting. Doing this by placing his actors, his players, in a fully realized setting. A setting with much more than villains, monsters, and faceless drones. A well realized setting presents the adventuring group with dramatic possibilities (read, 'adventures) that arise organically instead of being scripted. That is, dramatic events would be natural instead of imposed.

"Sir, I be freeholder Mark. Be I free to trouble you some? Thank you, sir. I be a freeholder on Lord Baric's fief and he be busy with the grape harvest right now. I be busy now with an ankheg on my land. Since you be closer to he, and possessed of free time, I come to petition you and your companions to come and deal away with pestiferous beast. What trinkets he hold be yours by battle right, and I can pay, though it be but a pittance. And I be able to give you a good word with Lord Baric be he looking for such as you. What be you saying?"

I think you get the drift.

 

[mythusmage]

I'm pretty clearly somewhere between author and actor stance internally. Probably externally too--I might pop up an accent on occasion, develop unusual speech patterns, or whatnot, but I often find that too intrusive to keep up.

Two things:

1. Be consistent.
2. Persevere. Let the others get used to it.

In addition, when somebody complains about your acting, respond in character. If you're speaking with an accent or in dialect, respond using that accent or dialect. Act affronted, act insulted, take the bastich to task for his foul manners and insulting speech. Play to him as his character, and if playing a touchy sort such as a dwarf or noble (regardless of character class) offer to face him on the field of honor. Make a big stink about his rudeness. You make your tirade entertaining enough you'll get the others on your side and Mr. Impatience will back down and let well enough alone from then on.