Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7622809" data-attributes="member: 16814">The best firm of your argument I can divine is that, given equal empathy and faithfulness to the character portrayed, that speaking in first person with affectations of mannerism and accent, is prima facie superior to presenting the character in 3rd person.  Both characters presentations are equally "true" reoresentations of the character, but one adds a performative act the other lacks, and that this performative act elevates the one to be a superior representation of the character. That acting is necessary to achieve the highest tiers of roleplaying.I disagree, for the following:1) performative acts by themselves do not increase the honesty and fidelity of the reoresentation of a character.  Else it would be true that all stage or screen representations of a given character from a novel would be superior to the written character. 2) given 1, if performative acts cannot, by themselves, elevate roleplay, consideration of how they can is warranted.  This really boils down to ways in which performance can increase character fidelity.  And, yes, it can increase character fidelity, if done well.  If done poorly, then it can decrease character fidelity.  Again, considering 1, this would mean that performance can only improve roleplay in cases where it improves character fidelity.  Ergo, the key element here is not performance, but increased character fidelity.3) other forms of media that do not include acting can present extremely well formed character representations.  Acting does not always improve these representations when the character is transitioned to a new medium.  Therefore, acting cannot be the best form of representation if a character by default.  It may be, but is not guaranteed to be so, even when gifted actors are involved.4) Point 3 becomes even more obvious when the character becomes more fantastical and representation is outsude the physical abilities of the actor.  In the case of very fantastical things, acting cannot be said to be a more accurate representation of the character than a non-acted description of behavior may be.  The sound of a dragon's roar, for example, can have more fidelity as a description than as acted out by a participant.5) Acting also tends to place more of the actor into the role.  There's a reason many good actors have a niche if characters they portray (Ben Affleck is a fine actor so long as he's playing a jerk).  This often results in a reversion to mean when acting -- tge further away a character's trait is from you, the less well it will be acted.  Hollywood can escape this by having scripts and directors, but still fails at times.  RPGs have no such controls, and player acting will always revert to closer to the player over time than to the character.  The above show cases where acting dies not result in the best roleplay.  I've already acceded that acting can be a natural way to improve character fidelity, but it is not sufficient or necessary to do so.  I like acting, I'm good at it (for tabletop purposes), and tend to prefer it as my approach.  I harbor no illusions, though, that my preference is the GoodRightFun of roleplaying, and try to pay attention for those places where acting out decreases fidelity.</blockquote>

Verification