Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 8244361" data-attributes="member: 75787">I often wonder how many people who equate immersive roleplaying with "being in actor stance" have actual strong experience of being an actor? Because they seem to describe a state of mind in which 100% of the actor's mind is so immersed in the character that anything external to the character is not intruding. But I don't think this is not the actual case. In fact, I might argue that the best possible state for an actor would be about 50-50 split in their mentality; half of their mind fully engaged in the character, acting and reacting as part of the flow; the other half analyzing the situation as a play for  issues, thoughts and ways to make it better. In other words, half in-character thought and half meta-thought.As an example, I was playing a character in Agatha Christie's AND THEN THEN WERE NONE a few years back and had to enter in a high state of excitement. Offstage, I would do so some physical prep to build physical tension (meta mind) and also subvocalize and talk to myself in character (in-character mind). When I entered the scene, my prep -- both just then and over the course of the run -- made most of what I was presenting to the audience  automatic -- here's a sample of my meta-thoughts in action for one performance I recall very clearly (lines edited slightly to avoid too many spoilers):"It's all come true. My Ten Little Soldiers plan -- My rhyme -- my rhyme"Oh -- the other character on set jumped back much more stage right than usual. I'll have to delay a little while circling her to give them time to move back to position. They should work it out ..."Silence! It's all right, it's all right. Don't be frightened ..."Great, they noticed and adjusted. All good now... (Long speech here) ... "... The question was, who would win out?" <step up onto sofa>This sofa is a bit unsteady. Must remember to ask to have a more solid board put under the cushion between acts. "... he went and hanged himself ..." <throws rope with noose up over the ceiling rig>Oh crap ... that's hanging in exactly the wrong place -- it must be snagged. It's right where I fall behind the sofa in about two lines now. If I catch myself on it when I dive it could be really nasty and will look terrible"... I must have my hanging ... my hanging!"Oh naughty word, there's <other actor> ready to shoot. I'll have to dive to the right and miss the mattress. This is going to hurt, but I won't break anything, hopefully. BANG! <falls behind sofa, missing the mattress>OK, not injured, just bruised, I think. Let's give a thumbs up to the stage manger who is looking very nervous so they know I'm OK and they can continue. Two minutes to curtain; five to ibuprofen ...I don't think I'm that unusual as an actor. There always seems to be two parts to the mind, one concerned with the character and the other with the play as an entity. Any good actor will always be aware of positioning, who is blocking who, things that will distract the audience, that sort of thing. Relating this to roleplaying games: Their typical "audience" is the other players, so I would expect someone in "actor mode" to be spending about half their energy on "what would my character do" and half half on meta decisions that make the audience enjoy the game more. So for me, when an RPG player uses a meta tool to make the game more fun, they are behaving exactly as I would expect a good actor to do.As a director, an actor who doesn't modify his acting to help his fellow actors is a selfish actor, and one who doesn't use acting techniques to make the performance run well is a bad actor. As a GM, a player who doesn't modify his play to help his fellow players is a selfish player, and one who doesn't use meta techniques to make the game run well is a bad player. TLDR: An "all-immersion" actor is a disaster; an "all-immersion" player is also a disaster.</blockquote>

Verification