Questions for Actor-type role-players

[Wendell_Burke]

I have a few questions for those of you whose preferred playstyle is that of the perspective of your character, or Actor-stance.

• I’m curious to see how many, if any, of you are out there?
• I’d like to hear about your processes for developing your characters. How much you invest in them? How much, and what kind of prep do you do before the start of the game? Do you use any tools to develop your characters? If so, what are they?
• How many people are in your current gaming groups, and how many of them share your preference for this playstyle?
• Has this preference been problematic for you in gaming groups? If so, how?
• Has this preference been beneficial to you in gaming groups? If so, how?

 

[Clint_L]

1. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "actor-type role-players." If you mean players who try to play as their character, making choices and even speaking as the character most of the time during play, then that's my group, and even a lot of the young players at my school. I would say at least half, and almost all of the ones who've played for a few years. I mean, I'm a terrible actor but I do my best.

2. I always start with a character concept, then give them a history and make sure they have a want (why are they adventuring? Money? Fame? Wanderlust? Revenge?) and a need, that they probably aren't aware of. Yet. I don't personally use any tools for that process, but I've recommended various random tables for players who want help developing character ideas.

3. As stated above, beginner players are usually shy about getting into character and often explain what their character is doing third-hand ("My character asks the shopkeeper how much the armour will cost." "My fighter charges the largest ogre and attacks."). But before long most try to start acting and speaking more in character. Almost all veteran players that I've encountered role-play.

4. Not problematic at all. To the contrary, I find that players who don't try to get in character come off as kind of stiff and less fun to play with.

5. Yes. Very beneficial, because it's more fun. It's hard to imagine even being able to play a game like Dread, Fiasco, or Monster Hearts without getting into character.

 

[Voadam]

I have a few questions for those of you whose preferred playstyle is that of the perspective of your character, or Actor-stance.

• I’m curious to see how many, if any, of you are out there?
• I’d like to hear about your processes for developing your characters. How much you invest in them? How much, and what kind of prep do you do before the start of the game? Do you use any tools to develop your characters? If so, what are they?
• How many people are in your current gaming groups, and how many of them share your preference for this playstyle?
• Has this preference been problematic for you in gaming groups? If so, how?
• Has this preference been beneficial to you in gaming groups? If so, how?

I am also not sure exactly what you mean by actor-stance. Or as contrasted with what other playstyles.

I try and play immersively, talking a bunch in character first person, trying to be reactive and in the moment and feel that I am there. I prefer that over a pawn stance of 3rd person interaction.

I usually try to develop a bit of a hook for developing a character/characterization that I think at the time will be fun or interesting to play. One character is clever and striving for angles. One is angry and willing to lash out immediately. One was an anime villain. One is a good guy communist dwarf, (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need). One is an arrogant power seeker. One is a liar with secrets. My current glory paladin started with a theme song of "I'm too sexy". From that I just go and see what develops.

I don't have a goal of playing stats or a fully fledged concept of a thing separate from me, I just pick things I think are fun whether they are parts of me or not. I have played characters that are very different from me and ones that consciously focus on aspects of me.

The only problem is discussions with people who feel there is only one right way to roleplay. I have known not to play certain character types in some games because I know they have a distinct view that I do not share on the right way to play those types (paladin and cleric in D&D).

It has been beneficial for me, I have fun approaching RPGs going for character hooks that I think will be fun to play.

 

[Tonguez]

The gnomes imc campaign are a tiny sized race more like the Brownies of Willow than DnD gnomes. (the subspecies also include quickling, forest (smurf), rock, tinker and boggan, plus the true fey Leprechaun and Red Cap)
For Orbril the gnome I started him as a young gnome sent out from his burrows to become an alchemist apprentice, I determined his relationship to his clan matriarch and other close brood-mates, then looked at gnome culture and how he would feel as a member of a eusocial species not being sent out on his own in a really really big world. I concentrated on developing a personality grounded in gnome culture as presented in the setting, then I went with him responding to the NPCs and setting around him. Gnomes are small, he stays back, hides from confrontation and uses his agility and alchemy to help.
Orbril did learn alchemy, but his adventures had his development change from my original conception, but with the grounding in his gnome culture, I was able to play his personality and track his development, despite being tortured by bandits, running from lots of monsters, founding a circus, domesticating giant hamsters and spreading them around the worlds gnome burrows, using fireworks to bring down an invading air ship, becoming a leading expert in the Geology of the Known World, Master Alchemist at a prestigious university and some times advisor of the Empress. I had him retire to the Fey lands at one stage, where he could admire the pretty pixies. But he later had to return to save his clan and relocate them to another part of the empire - thus bringing him full circle from Young gnome going out on his own to Gnome Elder integrated with his clan (ie he became Papa Smurf)

 

[Theory of Games]

I am also not sure exactly what you mean by actor-stance. Or as contrasted with what other playstyles .........

Player Types has been a thing for like 40+ years? It's behind 99.9% of all arguments about tabletop rpgs BECAUSE most in the hobby don't understand how impactful "how you play" is. Or, in the immortal words of Ron Edwards, "Play-style isn't everything but it is the only thing".

 

[TheSword]

I can only really come at this from a DM point of view as I DM 90% of the time (though I do think the regular 10% is extremely important).

My personal feeling is that it’s good to speak in both third and first person when acting out roles. I think most of my groups plays the same way but at least a few people aren’t comfortable with the first person approach and prefer to describe what they want.

There are multiple reasons I like the mixed approach. First it makes those people who prefer third person feel more comfortable if I as DM do it some times as well. An endorsement of their approach if you like. Secondly I think speaking in third person is more precise when you’re trying to convey information. Thirdly that style is less exhausting that staying in character. Lastly it makes the times I do use 1st person more memorable.

The only problem I would see with this style would be if your entire group wanted to be only one style - and you at that moment we’re using the other one. Then again I think it’s possible to respond in a different style to your fellow interlocutors.

First person on the other hand is better for creating atmosphere and tone, and bringing a character to life. Often the early encounters in an session or new area will be first person. It is more likely to provoke a response from a player or the group if they are more likely to be engaging. My preference is to use 1st person for things or NPCs I really want the PCs to remember.

In terms of PCs, I steal, liberally by trying to think how an actor speaks in a role and then modifiying it slightly if it’s a bit too obvious. I will then fix that actor in my mind or make a note of who they are for consistency. I don’t get too hung up on repetition. If two characters are similar then as long as they aren’t major NPCs I won’t get too hung up about it.

In terms of getting in character - I find the best way is to find a phrase that I can say in that voice and tone really well as a marker. A key to unlock that accent. So if I was trying to do Richard Harris as Marcus Aurelius in Gladiator I would say the phrase “And what is Rome Maximus?” Because once I say that the test follows. I find most character will have some similar phrase. Ironically if there isn’t make one up, because you imagining the character saying it, is more important than them actually saying it, to get into role.

The most important thing is to have fun and not get hung up about it. You’re not a professional voice actor (unless you are) so don’t feel obliged to behave like one. We frequently laugh when I remember part way through an NpC is supposed to be scouse or I do a really bad accent. Be humble, enjoy it.

 

[Voadam]

Player Types has been a thing for like 40+ years? It's behind 99.9% of all arguments about tabletop rpgs BECAUSE most in the hobby don't understand how impactful "how you play" is. Or, in the immortal words of Ron Edwards, "Play-style isn't everything but it is the only thing".

And everyone has their own categories and definitions. "preferred playstyle is that of the perspective of your character, or Actor-stance." sounds like the OP has a specific concept in mind which might or might not match up to Laws' Roleplaying or Method Actor categories and might or might not include how I approach roleplaying characters.

In that linked article it even says Laws switched from a four type classification to a seven type one.

Some consider going for the perspective of the character, but the character is you in a lot of ways, to not be true roleplaying or acting. Every Jack Nicholson character is identifiably Jack Nicholson in characterization, for example.

 

[Lanefan]

I have a few questions for those of you whose preferred playstyle is that of the perspective of your character, or Actor-stance.

• I’m curious to see how many, if any, of you are out there?

Ideally, count me as one more.

• I’d like to hear about your processes for developing your characters. How much you invest in them? How much, and what kind of prep do you do before the start of the game? Do you use any tools to develop your characters? If so, what are they?

There's a lot of random in our character generation thus I first have to see what the dice give me to work with. From there, I 1) come up with a basic alignment/ethos/outlook for the character, 2) try to think of something just a bit over the top, and unique, for it so as to make it memorable and-or entertaining (sometimes I'll base this on a real-life person, or amalgam of people, I've known), then 3) let it develop as play goes along.

• How many people are in your current gaming groups, and how many of them share your preference for this playstyle?

Variable number, and there's a real mix. Some couldn't act in-character if their lives depended on it, others wouldn't do it any other way. But most if not all at least try to think as their character would think.

• Has this preference been problematic for you in gaming groups? If so, how?
• Has this preference been beneficial to you in gaming groups? If so, how?

It's great when everyone's on board, and we make it work when that's not the case.

One little tip that IME helps with this is for the GM (and the players) to always use character names when talking to a player during the session about anything game-related, never the player name, as in "Corantha, roll me a six-sided please" rather than "Joanne, roll me a six-sided please".

 

[John Dallman]

• I’m curious to see how many, if any, of you are out there?

Me, for another.

• I’d like to hear about your processes for developing your characters. How much you invest in them? How much, and what kind of prep do you do before the start of the game? Do you use any tools to develop your characters? If so, what are they?

I think about the character's background and motives while generating them. I tend to realise more about them in the first few game sessions. The only tool I use for this is a word-processor, for making and organising notes. I think about characters I'm playing a fair bit outside game sessions, and will occasionally write in-character documents, such as letters home, or wills.

• How many people are in your current gaming groups, and how many of them share your preference for this playstyle?

Seven, four, and four in the groups I'm in at present, and many of them do the same. I'm not an absolutist about this: I speak in character, but I will also describe character actions in third person when that's clearer or faster, and will do "Pete asks about ..." when it looks as if the conversation might be long and I expect the information I'm after to be freely provided. This use of multiple narrative voices as a player can occasionally result in characters commenting on the players' situation or motives; we accept this because role-playing is not a completely serious activity.

• Has this preference been problematic for you in gaming groups? If so, how?
• Has this preference been beneficial to you in gaming groups? If so, how?

I don't think it's ever been a significant problem. I play this way because it helps me identify with my character and experience the events of the game more vividly.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Player Types has been a thing for like 40+ years?

I think the community that is into this sort of theorizing is more insular than many members of it realize.

It's behind 99.9% of all arguments about tabletop rpgs

... no?

In any case, I run games for more than a dozen people. They all approach the game from the POV of their characters and behave accordingly, almost always creating all sorts of shenanigans as a result.