Immersion, Stance, and Playstyle Discussion

[barsoomcore]

I LOVE acting. Acting is really, really fun. I enjoyed my acting classes immensely, and performing is a rush unlike any other.

That said, I don't like acting when I play RPGs. It's not why I play. If I want to act, I get a script, a stage and whatever essentials are required and I subject others to my efforts.

When I'm running a game, there's many, many things I'm doing that I LOVE that are not acting. I don't believe my game would be most improved by doing more improvisational acting. I have to make decisions on behalf of half-a-dozen NPCs, I have to make rulings on how the laws of physics are going to manifest themselves (not to mention the laws of metaphysics), I have to remember a zillion details I jotted down (or failed to jot down) over the past seven years, and I have to help my players make reasonable decisions on behalf of their characters.

What makes Barsoom memorable is NOT the funny voices I speak in. I sincerely hope so, at any rate. I HOPE that what makes Barsoom memorable (assuming it is -- we'll call that the "barsoomcore assumption") are the stories that come out of the game, the moments where dramatic tension exploded into satisfying resolution, the puzzles that came to light, the epic battles (including the epic dice rolls that altered an outcome dramatically) and the memorable NPCs the party has met over the years.

Making those things happen keeps me tremendously busy and happy. And while it is true to say that maybe memorable NPCs can be usefully "deployed" through certain acting techniques, I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean that I should consider doing more acting (or doing it better) as the primary means of making my game more fun.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Okay, for those times when you'll be playing a bit character have a pad of note paper on hand. Post-it notes work great. Jot down a couple of quirks or traits you can consult during the scene.

When you have some free time practice your accents and dialects. Come up with some stock characters you can easily slip into, and add variations to their personality whenever necessary.

One thing I've found useful is zoning out. Learn how to put yourself in a light trance. You'll be more comfortable and more in control.

It aint that hard and it won't ruin your life.

So can I put you down for "Actor stance"?

I just don't like acting. I'll do some dialogue sometimes, but not much if I can help it. I'm actually trying to do some more of it, but that's only because my players enjoy that kind of stuff.

I played in a campaign where I had to do all interactions with NPCs as dialogue. It was like this:

Me: "So, I want to have Sweeney talk to the bartnender about..."
DM: (blank look) "What dost thou refer to, my good man? I do not understand you."
Me: "Ah, crap."

I just don't dig it, is all. That's one of the nice things about being a GM, though, you can get along without it, and let your players happily chatter in character to each other. (Especially in our game, since there's no party, and the characters can't stand each other. The IC arguments are fun to watch.)

 

[mythusmage]

Me: "So, I want to have Sweeney talk to the bartnender about..."
DM: (blank look) "What dost thou refer to, my good man? I do not understand you."
Me: "Ah, crap."

You get used to it. Though I will admit the GM's 'dialect' was a tad much.

Advice for GMs: Stick to colloquial English (or you local lingo of preference). You aint impressing nobody and you're annoying many.

 

[fusangite]

You get used to it. Though I will admit the GM's 'dialect' was a tad much.

Advice for GMs: Stick to colloquial English (or you local lingo of preference). You aint impressing nobody and you're annoying many.

Mythusmage,

I'm not trying to be insulting here but in a lot of the threads in which you participate, you seem to assume that people want to game in the style that you do. You then tend to offer "advice" to people based on the assumption that playing like you do is their goal. Am I misinterpreting you here? If not, why do you tend to assume this? If so, maybe we could look at ways of phrasing things that do not cause people to erroneously conclude that you are offering your play style as some kind of universal.

The reason I raise this issue is that I often find I have a negative emotional reaction to your posts and almost instinctively choose to raise objections to them. So, rather than falling into this trap and simply finding something to dispute in your above post I thought I would explain my reaction and seek to clarify these issues so that our future dialogus can be more productive.

 

[mythusmage]

Mythusmage,

I'm not trying to be insulting here but in a lot of the threads in which you participate, you seem to assume that people want to game in the style that you do ...

Fu, it's an observation based on long experience. Given time most any body will adjust to what is often a stressful situation initially. I understand ST's reluctance re immersion. To some degree it means a loss of control. Then there is the fact many people aint that good at it.

You get right down to it, the GM should be first concerned with making sure the players are enjoying themselves. If any player has a hard time with acting, then keep it light, short, and focused. Keep it moving, keep the players engaged, and don't fret about the inconsequential.

BTW, how do you know people wouldn't want to play in 'my' style?

(I'm also having fun with ST. He's so adamant about prefering 3rd person roleplaying he could use a little twitting. )

 

[Rel]

BTW, how do you know people wouldn't want to play in 'my' style?

Perhaps we've delved into the "Actor Stance" and just decided that it wasn't to our liking. I can say for certain that your condescention is not recruiting members to your cause.

 

[TheGM]

As GM I have hassled players for refusing to roleplay - refusing to speak in-character. This isn't what Edwards calls "actor stance", though, which means simulation play, thinking purely in terms of what the character would do. I don't expect players to speak in character all the time but I do expect it for certain important situations such as political negotiations.

Agreed. I don't hassle them though, I lead by making the key NPCs individualized in some way - a manner of speech, an accent, a twitch, one even has glasses (when I put on the glasses and run them down to the end of my nose they go "Hey! That's so and so!"

It works for some, others are a little slower, but once half the group is RPing important encounters, the others join the fun. As long as there's some combat too, we're all pleased.

Of course, we've been running two online campaigns for about 18 months now, and I find it... Different. Easier to RP sometimes, speech patterns show up a lot more, but harder in others -no visual cues without interrupting dialogs, etc. It still works, just is a little different.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not trying to be insulting here but in a lot of the threads in which you participate, you seem to assume that people want to game in the style that you do. You then tend to offer "advice" to people based on the assumption that playing like you do is their goal. Am I misinterpreting you here? If not, why do you tend to assume this? If so, maybe we could look at ways of phrasing things that do not cause people to erroneously conclude that you are offering your play style as some kind of universal.

Fu, it's an observation based on long experience. Given time most any body will adjust to what is often a stressful situation initially. I understand ST's reluctance re immersion. To some degree it means a loss of control. Then there is the fact many people aint that good at it.

Well, mythusmage, no offense, but you oughta realize that not everyone wants to play the same way you do and the attitude that you sometimes come across with is a little off-putting- like you're telling others that they're playing wrong if they don't play with the same style as you. When this is directly pointed out to you, your reply sounds a lot like, "Well, of course everyone ought to play my way."

Just sayin'.

 

[fusangite]

Fu, it's an observation based on long experience. Given time most any body will adjust to what is often a stressful situation initially. I understand ST's reluctance re immersion. To some degree it means a loss of control. Then there is the fact many people aint that good at it.

I must say, I'm disappointed by your answer here, as are Rel and The Jester. Your idea that your experience with gaming is longer than ours also seems pretty dubious. I've been playing RPGs for 24 years, for instance; Rel, I believe, has been at it longer. I think you should really drop your assumptions about having discovered the perfect way of playing RPGs while you are contributing here on ENWorld; no good will come of stating this belief.

Remember how the other thread went -- the one you demanded the moderators close just a couple of days ago? I would suggest that the root cause of that episode was your unwillingness to learn about or even try to imagine other ways of playing RPGs. Ultimately, this approach hurts only you.

BTW, how do you know people wouldn't want to play in 'my' style?

(I'm also having fun with ST. He's so adamant about prefering 3rd person roleplaying he could use a little twitting. )

I think your attempt to come off as lighthearted here might come off a little better if you hadn't melted down two days ago and freaked-out at us over basically this issue. We don't know what to make of all the happy faces when we know that discussing issues like this can have you telling us to "stuff it" and closing a thread. That's why Sweeney started this thread -- so that if this happened again, you couldn't shut down all discussion on these issues.

 

[Rel]

I must say, I'm disappointed by your answer here, as are Rel and The Jester. Your idea that your experience with gaming is longer than ours also seems pretty dubious. I've been playing RPGs for 24 years, for instance; Rel, I believe, has been at it longer. I think you should really drop your assumptions about having discovered the perfect way of playing RPGs while you are contributing here on ENWorld; no good will come of stating this belief.

I've been gaming for almost exactly as long as you have, fusangite. And I think that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue. It doesn't matter if mythusmage has been playing for a week or a century, his comments have reeked of "The one true way to game is MINE." and that is patently false.

For the last couple weeks he has posted thread after thread that have titles that sound like platitudes carved in stone and sent down from his own personal mountain. He's not breaking any rules and I'm a big believer in the whole "If you don't like it then don't read it. But don't crap in the thread." philosophy. And that's why I didn't post in any of them.

I thought that the conversation in the thread similar to this one started interesting but quickly devolved into mythusmage telling anybody who tried to explain their answer that they were going off topic (as if going off topic is somehow a sin that never happens around here anyway). That's why I didn't post in that one and why I DID post in this one.

Historically, I have no reason not to like mythusmage. He seems a decent fellow in general and I tracked no particular trend in his posts. But ever since he appeared in this thread he has done nothing but give backhanded insults to those who do not embrace his style of play. He has implied that people (and GM's in particular) who don't thrust themselves fully into the role they are playing are simply insecure. And they're probably insecure because the GM isn't providing a "safe environment where the players can relax". And they're probably also insecure because they're not good at it and so they need to practice.

That's condescending enough to earn an eye roll from me but sometimes people post in a manner where there is an unspoken assumption that you are trying to achieve a certain style of play. They mean, "(If you want to improve the manner in which your group does X then) You need to focus on doing Y." but they only post that last part.

The part that irks me is when it is specifically pointed out that many of us just don't PREFER to play in the manner that mythusmage suggests and his response is essentially, "Well you must not be doing it right." First of all, that's a little insulting. And it is also edging into the territory where I'm apt to make the determination that a posters viewpoints are no longer of any value to me, NOT because they come from a viewpoint different from my own but from a viewpoint that won't even CONSIDER mine, even when I point it out rather clearly. mythusmage may wish to take that under advisment.

That's all I have to say about that except that I apologize to Sweeny Todd for feeling that I must address this in his thread.