males playing females and the other way around, opinions?

[ExploderWizard]

< You could switch every occurrance of 'roleplaying' in that with 'acting', and vice versa, and the meanings would still be exactly the same.

Just saying.

Not really. When acting, one is trying to get the audience to believe something that isn't true. When roleplaying one can simply react to situations without trying to "sell" the activity to anyone.

 

[Barastrondo]

The major difference between roleplaying and acting I'd cite is that it's commonly accepted that you can roleplay in the third person. Most places, "Beonar swears an oath against meddling elves and their genitalia" would be considered roleplaying. Acting, on the other hand, rather relies on the first person to work.

 

[Umbran]

When acting, one is trying to get the audience to believe something that isn't true.

Not in general. When acting someone might be trying to get an audience to believe that, if they swallow the general premise, the thing could be true. But that's not the same as getting them to believe it is actually true.

None of the cast of Star Wars was trying to get the audience to believe they were a documentary of actual events, but they were still acting.

When roleplaying one can simply react to situations without trying to "sell" the activity to anyone.

You do that fully enough, and it is indistinguishable from acting.

 

[Lanefan]

1) Write "female" on the char sheet.
2) Play the race/class combo as you see fit.
3) Pretend the character is male but take away reason, and accountability.

Or give it some...

Lanefan

 

[pawsplay]

I have been paid to role-play (I am studying counseling and get paid).
You can act in the third person (e.g. Greek chorus).
Acting is not synonomous with method acting.
Role-playing refers to both an action and to a hobby. I loosely divide the hobby (which I call "gaming" for clarity in an RPG context) into reading, role-playing, metagaming, and personal acualization (i.e. having a good time or becoming a more virtal person).

 

[Nameless1]

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Lanefan again.

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Barastrondo again.

I will restate that the way to sell a character is to have to world react to the character like they are what the player would like them to be. If the player wants the character to be female, s/he playes the character however s/he sees fit, and the rest of the players (GM included) roleplay the rest of the world reacting to the character as if she were female. Stereotypes are poor characterization, and do a poor job of selling a role because we inherently know how innacurate stereotypes are. We often just don't buy it when people play to them. Most intelligent people know that people are not stereotypes, and usually only act like that when they try to. If a character has a motivation to portray themselves as a stereotype (say a female thief who wants to put off the image of a ditzy damsel in distress to in an effort to lower the defenses of her marks, or the braggart gambler who is setting his opponents up to think that he can't really play), then playing to that stereotype is fun. Otherwise, it just seems shallow.

Many people don't get this concept. Many people play characters badly. That is no reason to ban them from playing the character that they want to. If their play sucks, help them to improve it. Help them to sell themselves. Call them on their poor stereotypes, and help them to portray believable characters. Commit to making them cool and your games will only get better.

 

[Lanefan]

I will restate that the way to sell a character is to have to world react to the character like they are what the player would like them to be. If the player wants the character to be female, s/he playes the character however s/he sees fit, and the rest of the players (GM included) roleplay the rest of the world reacting to the character as if she were female. Stereotypes are poor characterization, and do a poor job of selling a role because we inherently know how innacurate stereotypes are. We often just don't buy it when people play to them. Most intelligent people know that people are not stereotypes, and usually only act like that when they try to. If a character has a motivation to portray themselves as a stereotype (say a female thief who wants to put off the image of a ditzy damsel in distress to in an effort to lower the defenses of her marks, or the braggart gambler who is setting his opponents up to think that he can't really play), then playing to that stereotype is fun. Otherwise, it just seems shallow.

Many people don't get this concept. Many people play characters badly. That is no reason to ban them from playing the character that they want to. If their play sucks, help them to improve it. Help them to sell themselves. Call them on their poor stereotypes, and help them to portray believable characters. Commit to making them cool and your games will only get better.

All good, though I personally like to go a bit "over the top" with whatever I'm playing when chance allows; mostly for the entertainment and amusement value. And stereotypes can be a great top to go over!

Lanefan

 

[Nameless1]

I agree. There is a time and a place for everything. I was mostly addressing the complaint that people go way too over the top for confort for many players. If there is no discomfort, playing to stereotype can lead to very amusing beer and pretzels type games. As long as the stereotypes are not uncomfortable for anyone. In these cases, the characters may not be "believable", but they can be fun anyway.