The Strong Silent Type

[mhacdebhandia]

I also wonder what the real difference is between third-person description of a strong, silent type of character and "voiceover" narration of their thoughts and reactions.

To take, but not to pick on, the example above:

Lorgath sighs, then shrugs, then nods in approvement. He'll go on with the plan, though he doesn't seem to like it.

I think it's really pretty easy to slide down a slippery slope when it comes to third-person description. For instance, I've known players who would add something like "You know that Lorgath's people believe in a more direct approach to confrontation, making this kind of sneaking around a point of dishonour. Lorgath can see the wisdom of a little stealth in this situation, even if he doesn't want to admit it."

Now, I don't think there's a functional difference between that addition and an "internal monologue" where Lorgath muses on how difficult it is to agree to go against the traditions of his people even though he can see why it's necessary in this situation.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Well, I want to just point out... The strong silent type is not measured by what he DOSN'T say, it's measured by what he DOES say.

Consider Two iconic strong, silent types.

Silent Bob (Kevin Smith, most of his movies)

{after throwing an angel off the train, he turns to a shocked passenger. he looks suprised for a moment then gestures out the door}: "No Ticket."

The Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood, a fistfull of dollars) "Get three coffins ready." (later in the film) "My Mistake, Four coffins..."

Now see? Both are strong, silent types. in both cases, their best lines come within a few moments of doing something badass. Though, Real strong, silent types can have their moments of chatter in NON-combat situations.

Bob: "Oh, but I think it is... We had a deal with you, on the comics remember, for likeness rights, and as we're not only the artistic basis, but also obviously the character basis, for your intellectual property, Bluntman and Chronic. When said property was optioned by Miramax Films, you were legally obliged to secure our permission to transfer the concept to another medium. As you failed to do that, Banky, you are in breach of the original contract, ergo you find yourself in a very actionable position."

The Man With No Name: "You mean the Mexican goverment on one side? Maybe the Americans on the other side? Me right smack in the middle? Uhn-hn. Too dangerous. So long."

 

[Nomad4life]

The solution for roleplaying the silent type (strong or meek ) is to play in the third person rather than the first.

For example, this: "Lorgath sighs, then shrugs, then nods in approvement. He'll go on with the plan, though he doesn't seem to like it."

Gez beat me to it. This is just what I was going to suggest, and I've seen it work pretty well.

 

[Tsillanabor]

Well, I want to just point out... The strong silent type is not measured by what he DOSN'T say, it's measured by what he DOES say.
SNIP

One of my players is playing the SST. He is good at knowing when to make that one statement that blows everyone's mind. That is the secret to making the character effective.

 

[Drowbane]

Bah, I'll be good...

One point that I haven't seen addressed quite yet is the party dynamic. Gather 5-7 random gamers at a convention and with any luck at all you will end up with 1 or 2 who are actually comfortable roleplaying thier characters to the hilt. IME, gamers are a shy bunch... except for the few who also happen to be Drama students.

Many of the Strong Silent types I've seen played have been by players who were unassuming to the point where they'd rather just state thier character's actions so as to not take up "too much game time".

 

[Hussar]

So I think it's perfectly possible to react as a player to the revelation of something your character doesn't know by having your character respond to the revelation in all ignorance. It's the same kind of fun, I suppose, as when characters in Smallville ask questions about Clark Kent doing the seemingly impossible and he has to hastily construct an explanation or hurriedly change the subject.

I do appreciate, though, that people who only enjoy gaming when they're experiencing deep immersion in their characters and can't stand to be shown or told anything about what's going on other than what they know couldn't enjoy this way of playing. It seems to me, though, that deep-immersion as a motivator for disliking what I'll call "constructive metagaming" takes a distant backseat to simple traditionalism which automatically labels all metagaming as negative.

I don't see playing a character as deep immersion. Repeatedly characterizing it as such doesn't make it true. As I've stated, I have zero problem with someone playing their character in the third person. No problems at all. That's about as unimmersive as you can get (if that's a word).

See, you mention Smallville. Now there's a case where there is NO OOC knowledge being used. Despite the fact that the players may know that Clark is Superman, they choose to ignore it. However, why go that route? Why not simply restrict the knowledge in the first place. Then, such questions are not entirely contrived. Why would I, as a player in Smallville, bother questioning how Clark ran so fast? I know. I can look across the table and see Superman on Joe's character sheet.

For me to have my character start asking questions is entirely contrived. I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because my character would want to know and I want to watch Joe squirm as he tries to come up with yet another bogus story.

And, of course, the entire house of cards collapses the second Joe can't. Because Joe doesn't have a team of writers handing him a script, he's more likely to fall on his bottom eventually. Secret comes out, game take a radical right turn.

Now, if I really didn't know that Joe was playing Superman, I'd be much more willing to accept explanations given that I don't have real reason to disbelieve Joe. I have no idea how he is doing these things, his stories are wonky, but, lacking any other explanations, I have to accept it.

I have no problems with players stating their character's actions. That's groovy. However, when the player makes his character so much of a wallflower that he's effectively mute, then he adds very little to the table. Spouting off a stream of conciousness in game would be so jarring. I've said that before, but, it's the best word. The players cannot react to it since the SST is stonefaced. The DM can't really react to it since no one around him knows what he's thinking.

Now, if the SST is describing his body action and facial expression, that's communicating and I'm happy again. There's something to work off of. He's leaning forward, he's using gestures, he's making a face. GREAT! Bloody fantastic. I have no problem with the SST because he's now COMMUNICATING.

Actually, thinking about it, if you are using body language to communicate, isn't that MUCH more deeply immersive than 3rd party statements?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I don't see playing a character as deep immersion. Repeatedly characterizing it as such doesn't make it true. As I've stated, I have zero problem with someone playing their character in the third person. No problems at all. That's about as unimmersive as you can get (if that's a word).

That's actually what I was getting at: I didn't think you were talking about a "voiceover" being jarring because you're super-immersive. I got the impression you just took the traditionalist position that "metagaming = bad"; therefore, your character can't react to what you, the player, just heard; therefore, the guy doing the "voiceover" is just wasting everyone's time and playing by himself.

See, you mention Smallville. Now there's a case where there is NO OOC knowledge being used. Despite the fact that the players may know that Clark is Superman, they choose to ignore it. However, why go that route? Why not simply restrict the knowledge in the first place. Then, such questions are not entirely contrived. Why would I, as a player in Smallville, bother questioning how Clark ran so fast? I know. I can look across the table and see Superman on Joe's character sheet.

The fact that you ask that question illustrates how different we are as gamers - which is in no way a bad thing. For me, the answer to that question - "Why would I, as a player in Smallville, bother questioning how Clark ran so fast?" - is so simple and obvious it's taken for granted - "Because my character, Lana Lang, doesn't know Clark has superspeed."

For me to have my character start asking questions is entirely contrived. I'm not asking because I want to know. I'm asking because my character would want to know and I want to watch Joe squirm as he tries to come up with yet another bogus story.

I would say "Because I know Joe enjoys playing Clark Kent squirming to come up with a bogus story". If he doesn't - in other words, if it was Joe who would be squirming and struggling to come up with a story - then he's presumably not enjoying it and I wouldn't want to be playing in this mode with him. I want Joe to be on-board with the fun of this too! In fact, if we were playing in a game where I, as a player, knew Clark Kent's secret, but I knew Joe doesn't want to play the dance-with-what-Clark's-friends-know game because he doesn't enjoy it, I wouldn't ask those pointed questions as Lana Lang.

Hopefully, of course, if we're playing Smallville Joe does want to play that dance, and that's why he's playing Clark Kent.

And, of course, the entire house of cards collapses the second Joe can't. Because Joe doesn't have a team of writers handing him a script, he's more likely to fall on his bottom eventually. Secret comes out, game take a radical right turn.

Well, there are three things here:

a) That happens in Smallville - Pete Ross learns the truth about Clark's origin and abilities - but it doesn't have to change the game. Instead, Pete's player could do as the writers did, and have Pete conspire with Clark to keep his secret. This is similar to my original example of the male channeller in the Wheel of Time campaign: obviously the player of the other suspect knew who the channeller was, but as it happened his character had his reasons for keeping the secret from the other PCs, and the player also enjoyed keeping the secret from the other players until the player of the channelling PC decided to "come out".

b) Joe's not the only one who might be invested in keeping the secret. Continuing with the Smallville example, there are occasions when other characters like Lana or Lex Luthor are present when Clark Kent uses his powers, but they're prevented by the confusion of the moment, or by unconsciousness, or by some other factor from seeing exactly what happened - and, in the context of the game, these can be factors deliberately added by Lex's or Lana's player in the name of maintaining the "genre conceit" that Clark always gets away somehow with using his powers around his friends until he chooses to reveal them. "Gee, Clark, I couldn't see anything with all this blood in my eyes. How did you get that knife away from him?" "Just lucky, I guess . . . I didn't want to see him hurt you." In another context, it can be fun to play the "almost caught you, there!" game - like if Lana has been knocked unconscious by a lunatic, and I'm sitting there while she's unconscious watching Clark take the guy out, I can enjoy the fact that if Lana had stayed conscious one more round I would have seen Clark zoom in at super-speed.

c) It's not necessarily a game-wrecking thing to have a PC secret revealed, is it?

Now, if I really didn't know that Joe was playing Superman, I'd be much more willing to accept explanations given that I don't have real reason to disbelieve Joe. I have no idea how he is doing these things, his stories are wonky, but, lacking any other explanations, I have to accept it.

So I guess what you're trying to say is that you either can't, or don't enjoy, knowing more about the world and the other characters than what your character knows. That you can't or won't firewall the distinction between in-character and out-of-character knowledge, and that you don't enjoy toying with that divide.

That's cool! I'm just suggesting that it's not universal, and that there may be some (even many?) players who only think that way because it's the traditionalist way to play that was drummed into them when they started gaming, and who might enjoy something different if they got the chance.

Actually, thinking about it, if you are using body language to communicate, isn't that MUCH more deeply immersive than 3rd party statements?

Sure. I don't personally value deep immersion as a playstyle because I don't get any enjoyment out of identifying with my character to that degree. Perhaps it would even be difficult for me to play with a deep-immersive player, if it meant I had to constantly check my impulses to play with the divide between character knowledge and player knowledge (which is, as you can probably tell, one of my favourite aspects of the game).

 

[Hussar]

But, where do you stop?

I've been a DM pretty much all the time. While my knowledge of the MM isn't encyclopedic, it's generally pretty good. If I'm allowed to act upon OOC knowledge, then I should be able to act on that.

Of course, the counter arguement is that you only act on SOME OOC knowledge. But there's the rub isn't it? How do you differentiate?

Sure, it might not be game breaking for a PC's secret to be revealed. Then again, it just might be. If Bob's character is actually evil in an all good party and he's got an amulet of non-detection to protect that secret, allowing that to come out could (not necessarily will, but could) drastically change the game.

But, that's not even what we're really talking about here though. We're not talking about letting a single cat out of the bag as a major plot point. We're talking about players doing a monologue, which the other players cannot react to, frequently in game. Assuming the monologue is entirely internal, and there are no external hints, then, while the players may or may not be happy, there is nothing they can do about it.

I'll give you an example from my game. One of the characters, a rogue, decided to pick up some extra cash by liberating a magic axe from a chest before the rest of the party arrived. However, the party, after casting detect magic, challenged him on it and took the axe back. Lots of really good rp I felt. They were giving him a hard time, but, not to the point of fighting. The player starts declaring as an internal monologue (and clearly demarks it as such) that he is being completely misunderstood and he only took the axe to give it as a present later.

Now, assuming that is true (and I honestly believe that it was), how should the party react to this? Should they stop giving him a hard time and just forgive him? Should they ignore this information and continue to give him a hard time? Should his punishment be mitigated? (I honestly don't remember if they punished him or not) Should the party start to magically trust him again?

To me, this is a pretty clear case where an internal monologue makes the game go KERLUNK! Had the players simply given this information to the party, then they could deal with it. As it is, it becomes an elephant in the corner. Use the information and you get a very strange chain of events. Don't use the information and you're a schmuck for berating a guy who was only trying to be nice.

 

[The Shaman]

Spoiler

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This is me roleplaying my inner monologue. Wasn't that fun?

 

[mhacdebhandia]

But, where do you stop?

I've been a DM pretty much all the time. While my knowledge of the MM isn't encyclopedic, it's generally pretty good. If I'm allowed to act upon OOC knowledge, then I should be able to act on that.

Of course, the counter arguement is that you only act on SOME OOC knowledge. But there's the rub isn't it? How do you differentiate?

You do whatever is fun for the people in the game, and you find out what they think is fun by talking about it.

One, there's nothing that says everything at the table has to be something the other players can react to. Doing an internal monologue as a "voiceover" can be subjected to whatever guidelines the group already has for solo time "in the spotlight", or to whatever guidelines exist for running scenes where one of the PCs is off on their own: with the rest of the party watching, or with the isolated PC off in another room with the GM?

(I've played in games that used both, depending on the reason why the PC was off by themselves. The revelation of which Wheel of Time PC was the male channeller occurred when the PC in question was off by himself during a massive battle, with the GM "cutting" between each PC or group of PCs in turn, while everyone watched; prior to that point, the channelling PC's magic had been accomplished in "closed" solo scenes in another room or with notepassing, both activities that the other suspect PC had his own reasons to be engaged in.)

Two, the more you know about why your fellow players want to do certain things at the table, the better handle you will have on the "appropriate" response.

For instance, why was the player of the rogue in your example revealing this hidden motivation? Was he, as a player, regretting being caught trying to make some extra cash for his character, and justifying his PC's behaviour to the other players by inventing an in-character reason to nick the axe? Was he, as a player, simply making it clear that the other players (or their PCs) had misunderstood his character's secretively generous gesture, so that everyone knew he wasn't suddenly trying to screw the other players (or their PCs) over? Was he letting the fellow players in on his character's resentment simply for the pleasure of knowing what was going on in another character's head? Was he showing how his character felt so that the other players could choose to play to the possibility of even more conflict between the PCs - perhaps by playing more distrustful of the PC from this point forward than they otherwise might have, so as to increase the rogue's unhappiness with being constantly misunderstood and escalating the tension for fun and profit for all concerned - in other words, as a "tell" that the player was really enjoying the conflict between the PCs and wanted to see more of it in the future? Was he showing how his character felt so that the other players would choose to back off in the future, as a "tell" that he didn't mind the PC-on-PC conflict but didn't want it to go too far?

The more you know about what the other players at your table want out of the game, the easier selecting the correct answer becomes.

If the player of that rogue was me, for instance, I imagine that the second-to-last answer would be the most likely: I would be using my "voiceover" to clue the other players in to how my character was feeling about the misunderstanding, so that they would know I was getting a kick out of how frustrated my rogue was and resentful of their PCs' having leapt to a negative conclusion . . . but then, I am hopefully well-known to my fellow players as someone who delights in his character being stuck in awkward, even terrible circumstances, and seeing how (or indeed even if) they manage to repair the situation.

Really, it makes me think of a player in both the Planescape and Wheel of Time games whose characters were often quite angry at their fellow PCs, but who would always take the time to make sure that the players he yelled at in-character understood that he wasn't angry at them, his character was angry at their characters. That is just as much a metagame establishment of the truth of the situation between players and between characters as a "voiceover" which illuminates a character's inner thoughts . . . and it's a very useful and sometimes necessary thing . . . and it's not even in-character.