D&D 5E What D&D should learn from a Song of Ice and Fire (Game of Thrones)

[Ahnehnois]

One other thing that occurs to me is the idea of spotlight. GRRM routinely stashes characters for later use, or brings them up out of obscurity, or changes their degree of relevance in a variety of ways over the course of their story; it's not just one clean, crisp "zero to hero" narrative.

Watching the most recent episode, it seemed to me that the Ellaria Sand character hasn't been developed in any meaningful way. AFAICT, she just had a few lines here and there to establish herself as Oberyn's best friend. And yet, they cast a legit actor to play her, and they ask the audience to care about her scream of horror, despite the relative lack of screentime and relevance of the character.

In the acting world, being able to work with that-to convey a character with minimal dialogue-is considered a virtue. I think there's a lot to be learned for D&D players from film and theater acting, particularly regarding humbleness and deference. It's okay if your character is marginalized or irrelevant. As long as the game itself is worth playing, you don't necessarily have to be doing something important right now.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In the acting world, being able to work with that-to convey a character with minimal dialogue-is considered a virtue. I think there's a lot to be learned for D&D players from film and theater acting, particularly regarding humbleness and deference. It's okay if your character is marginalized or irrelevant. As long as the game itself is worth playing, you don't necessarily have to be doing something important right now.

Not at all a reasonable comparison. D&D is played for fun. Acting is a job for money. If you are having to sit on your hands as a player, because the DM is making you irrelevant, you are likely having no fun. Whereas the actor is paid for their time.

 

[Mistwell]

D&D could emulate the books with one very simple bit of DM guidance: "As soon as a character becomes heroic, sympathetic, or even interesting, kill him." I slogged through the first book in the hope that it would get better, but never again. It's probably obvious that this is one thing I hope D&D wouldn't take.

To be fair, that was part of the set-up. One thing the author is trying to do is show how characters who start out "bad" can end up being "good" in context of the longer story. When heroes die, it has an impact on those who witness it and live. There are characters who do become heroic (in their own way), sympathetic, and interesting, who just didn't start out that way in the books. It's worth sticking with, at least for the first three books or so, to see how things play out. There is more complexity to the characters than you might think from just the first book.

 

[Mistwell]

Not at all a reasonable comparison. D&D is played for fun. Acting is a job for money. If you are having to sit on your hands as a player, because the DM is making you irrelevant, you are likely having no fun. Whereas the actor is paid for their time.

Uh, as the spouse of a professional actor, let me tell you most acting is done for free. Most of it takes place in theater productions, where the actors are not paid, and they're doing it because it IS fun, and because it's deeply fulfilling to them. Acting is sort of like writing and drawing and photography and being a musician and any other art form. It's great if you get paid to do it, but if it's your passion then getting paid isn't really the point...you're doing it because you kind of have no choice as it's a driving force in your life.

Anyway - most actors are not paid for their time. What you're seeing on television and in movie theaters and on Broadway is only an incredibly small sliver of the overall body of acting that takes place.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Uh, as the spouse of a professional actor, let me tell you most acting is done for free. Most of it takes place in theater productions, where the actors are not paid, and they're doing it because it IS fun, and because it's deeply fulfilling to them. Acting is sort of like writing and drawing and photography and being a musician and any other art form. It's great if you get paid to do it, but if it's your passion then getting paid isn't really the point...you're doing it because you kind of have no choice as it's a driving force in your life.

Anyway - most actors are not paid for their time. What you're seeing on television and in movie theaters and on Broadway is only an incredibly small sliver of the overall body of acting that takes place.

Oh, I know, but in this particular case we're talking about that small sliver, and the entire comparison rests on it.

This would be comparable, with unpaid acting, to being told to study for a role, then not allowed to even practice or run lines, let alone appear.

 

[Mistwell]

Oh, I know, but in this particular case we're talking about that small sliver, and the entire comparison rests on it.

This would be comparable, with unpaid acting, to being told to study for a role, then not allowed to even practice or run lines, let alone appear.

No that was not his point at all (and he even named theater so I am not sure where the confusion is coming from). He said RPGers could learn from acting - not paid acting, just acting. He said being able convey a character with minimal dialogue is considered a virtue in acting, and he's right. He said there's a lot to be learned regarding humbleness and deference in acting, and he's right in that as well.

For me personally as long as over the course of a campaign everyone feels roughly like they got enough spotlight, it's OK (or even good) if not everyone gets equal spotlight every session. Not everyone needs to be equally good at combat, or at exploration, or at social encounters. It's a good thing if the fighter shines during combat, if the rogue shines during exploration, and if the bard shines during social encounters. And if you feel everyone needs to shine equally in all these things all the time, then the advice he gave about acting is probably wise advice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For me personally as long as over the course of a campaign everyone feels roughly like they got enough spotlight, it's OK (or even good) if not everyone gets equal spotlight every session. Not everyone needs to be equally good at combat, or at exploration, or at social encounters. It's a good thing if the fighter shines during combat, if the rogue shines during exploration, and if the bard shines during social encounters. And if you feel everyone needs to shine equally in all these things all the time, then the advice he gave about acting is probably wise advice.

There's a very strong tension between the first line and the bolded bit, here. Unless your campaign provides roughly equal weight to combat, exploration, and social encounters, you're making it hard for the first bit to be true. Further, it ignores the very real issue of people "turning off" when their PCs are rules-excluded from a scene.

Another reason acting is a crap comparison is that actors know what they are getting in to. If you agree to play X part and understudy Y, you know the minimum and maximum amount of what you're going to get to do. If you're told you're only walk-on extra #112, you know it. Whereas a PC can be excluded by a careless DM, an adventure which excludes his role (it may even be a good adventure, otherwise!), or simply dynamics, and has no idea beforehand that this is going to happen.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Not at all a reasonable comparison. D&D is played for fun. Acting is a job for money. If you are having to sit on your hands as a player, because the DM is making you irrelevant, you are likely having no fun. Whereas the actor is paid for their time.

Not JUST that, but when an actor only has to show up, film a couple of scenes and then come back in a couple of weeks to do some more scenes, they can do stuff in between. They can do whatever they like for fun.

When you are sitting at a table for 4 or 5 hours straight unable to leave or do anything else because most DMs don't like any distractions at the table, the fact that you are sitting there doing nothing is kind of boring. You can't even justify it based on "I may have a bit part that's boring to play but I'll get contacts and exposure and it'll open up the possibility of new and better paying roles in the future."

It's especially bad if your character is benched for multiple sessions. Since there's no script you don't know if you're character will show up again next session, so you have to keep coming anyways.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not JUST that, but when an actor only has to show up, film a couple of scenes and then come back in a couple of weeks to do some more scenes, they can do stuff in between. They can do whatever they like for fun.

When you are sitting at a table for 4 or 5 hours straight unable to leave or do anything else because most DMs don't like any distractions at the table, the fact that you are sitting there doing nothing is kind of boring. You can't even justify it based on "I may have a bit part that's boring to play but I'll get contacts and exposure and it'll open up the possibility of new and better paying roles in the future."

It's especially bad if your character is benched for multiple sessions. Since there's no script you don't know if you're character will show up again next session, so you have to keep coming anyways.

Indeed - that's actually a more cogent point than the one I was making!

 

[DM Howard]

But does it really matter where they've been exposed to these bands? Isn't the important thing that these kids are listening to Sonic Youth and the Pixies, and maybe eventually Pavement, Dinosaur Jr. and Red Kross?

Of course, it doesn't really matter. Your entire post is correct. It's simply the irrational response I have to it sometimes.