The Strong Silent Type

[Hussar]

Drawn from observations in another thread

I have problems with the strong silent archetype in games. I do. I see it as a dodge by players who can't be bothered to actually make any effort towards role play. While my games are certainly not Shakespeare by any stretch, I do try to make some effort towards interparty interaction and staying in character.

Yet, if a player insists on the silent type, how much interaction can you really have?

In novels and movies, the strong silent type usually features an internal monologue. I'm not so sure if this would work very well in a game. Since it's meant to be internal, the other players shouldn't react to it and, really, being privy to it is metagaming as well. I would find it extremely jarring as a player or as a DM to have someone start stating their thoughts in game while not being able to react to those thoughts.

It is possible to play the strong, silent type in game. With the emphasis on the strong end. Wolverine is a good example of this from comic books. While Wolverine isn't exactly verbose, he does get in lots of dialogue. Another might be some of Clint Eastwood's characters. Ok, perhaps not the stranger in A Fistful of Dollars , but Harry Calahan does do a fair bit of talking.

Getting across the toughguy character is certainly a great archetype. However, in a role playing game where the source of interaction is generally verbal, I have a problem with people taking a mute archetype.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I'll repost my response from the original thread:

If I enjoy hearing my fellow players describe their characters' feelings, thoughts, and reactions after the game, why not make the illumination of those internal processes part of play itself?

(I'm saying "I" because I'm trying to emphasise that this is something I enjoy, and that I don't want to universalise this to all players. I'm well aware there are many people who wouldn't enjoy getting any kind of insight into other PCs' thoughts and feelings that aren't revealed during play - I'm thinking of "deep immersives" primarily.)

Likewise, if one of my fellow players gets a solo scene where her PC is the only one around, I can enjoy learning what she's up to even though my PC does not know himself and may never learn about it if she chooses to keep it a secret.

(We have to leave aside the fact that solo scenes and internal monologues can, sometimes, lead to a hogging of the spotlight by one player. We can all accept, I hope, that this is not a necessary consequence of the technique, and restrict ourselves to talking about instances where it doesn't lead to the exclusion of other players.)

Given all of this - why not make this part of the regular course of play? Why avoid "metagaming" of this type on principle when it can be enjoyable?

I guess the real question at the heart of this is: Why should players always restrict themselves to enjoying only the things that their characters are aware of?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I'd also like to make the point that "staying in character" is not a universal value. It's necessary for some playstyles but it's certainly not the sine qua non of roleplaying.

 

[Stone Dog]

In response to

Players who enjoy strong silent type characters in my games get RP bonuses from journals and notes describing internal monologues. That way they get to be terse all they want and not get gyped when bonus XP time roles around. Bonus XP can take the form of roleplaying, journal writing or drawing depending on the talents of the player.

Would you give a similar bonus for giving a "voiceover", in-character or otherwise, during play?

It depends on the dynamic of the group. If it was conducive to a fun environment, then all things being equal I probably would. Most of the time I take a "if you say it in character, everybody present can hear it" frame of mind though.

 

[Drowbane]

So what is wrong with the Strong Silent type? Isn't it a bit elitist to expect everybody to roleplay a certain way? I for one am not all that into chatterbox PCs (one reason I avoid Bards...). This doesn't mean I'm just there to roll some dice, kill stuff and take its loot (although there is nothing inherently wrong with that style of play). I've always thought that actions speak louder than words, this holds over to my style of Roleplay.

 

[Numion]

So what is wrong with the Strong Silent type?

I've had one player explain me that he should get the extra xp for roleplaying. In his opinion his character was of the strong, silent type and was best roleplayed by not roleplaying at all. That didn't fly with me

 

[Drowbane]

I've had one player explain me that he should get the extra xp for roleplaying. In his opinion his character was of the strong, silent type and was best roleplayed by not roleplaying at all. That didn't fly with me

So only being verbose equates to roleplaying? Interesting notion.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

So only being verbose equates to roleplaying? Interesting notion.

Well, like has already been mentioned. It is hard to do an internal monologue in DnD or most other RPing games. What may work for a character in a novel does not work so well as the other players dont know if the character is constantly thinking or if the player just wants to get to killing stuff and is not doing an internal monologue.

 

[Hussar]

So only being verbose equates to roleplaying? Interesting notion.

I think we can do without the hyperbole.

Sitting at the table, saying nothing for hours on end would seem very boring to me, if I were to engage in similar hyperbole.

I'm by no means saying that you have to talk all the time. That's not what I said at all. However, IMHO, in a role playing game, you DO have to talk. You should interact with both the other characters in the game and the NPC's. At least a little.

I disagree with mhacdebhandia. When a player announces his internal reasons to the other players, there is really only two choices. Either the other players entirely ignore the announcement (as they should since their characters have no way of actually knowing this information) or the players act upon it, in which case the PC's have suddenly been gifted with telepathy and this is pure metagaming.

Now, there are ways to do quieter characters. Body language can be used. Facial expression. That sort of thing. And that, done well, can be fine. However, I've seen the "strong silent" archetype used far too often to simply skip over any sort of role playing and contribute nothing to the game.

I know this does sound somewhat elitist. Wrongbadfun and all that. But, even so, there has to be an element of interaction on some level between the characters. There is no need for it to be done in character. I don't mean that. I have no problems with a player announcing that his character asks the barkeep for a beer and staying entirely in the third person. That's fine. The player is still interacting.

I'm the last person to push for immersive gaming. If a player wants to stay in third person and never utter a single line in character, that's completely fine with me. But, that player still must contribute something to the gaming table besides body warmth. A player who never interacts with anyone, who meets any contact with stony silence, is a problem, not a simple style choice.

/edit - a later thought

I guess the real question at the heart of this is: Why should players always restrict themselves to enjoying only the things that their characters are aware of?

I can think of several reasons why players should restrict themselves to things their characters are aware of. OOC knowledge is a big one. Why bother having knowledge skills if I'm up on my monster-fu? Why not shake down the thief because I the player know that he just robbed that merchant? Maybe I read a spoiler on that module you're running - can I act on that?

I made the somewhat facetious example in the other thread of the Player saying that he'd like to punch the other player in the nose as part of his internal monologue. Should my character be able to react to that? At what point is the use of out of character knowledge acceptable?

 

[Varianor Abroad]

At a tournament last summer, I gave the top individual roleplaying score to a player who stood there, affected a posture for the character, and spoke very little. But he had a consistent "voice" that was not his own. He definitely fit into the Strong Silent Type. The other side of this coin, as already remarked, is that not everyone wants to roleplay that intensely.

The Gaming Buddy (as defined by Robin Laws) often says little as the session. Yet the longer and longer I DM, the more I become convinced that the essential "glue" of a good group requires a Gaming Buddy present. (Among other things not on topic for this thread.)