I tend to agree that internalized roleplaying, while it can help you get a better grasp on the character and enrich the experience and depth of your own roleplaying, can lead to the kind of thing he is talking about, especially in PVP LARPS. The counter to that, I think, is that by knowing your character inside and out it helps establish them as a fuller person, which then makes roleplay with others far more layered and interesting. The problem being, that this approach isn't always used. I don't think it has to do with 'method acting', but with something that comes from *outside* the roelplaying experience-- that RPer's, especially LARPer's, tend to be (tend to, as in not all are) rather passive. They hold their cards close to the chest not because they are creating the game only for themselves but because to act on things might put them in an uncomfortable position of aggression/being singled out.

The other side of this is keeping things close and acting in head in a narrative context. I think even if a player is concetrating on playing the game for themselves, one who has a sense of narrative responsibility will be able to react to the meta plot and external stimuli of other characters to enrich the other player's enjoyment as well. They will be far more willing to create a diverse game environment for everyone, because they understand that will make a better *story*.

(Reply) (Thread)

Yeah. I was basically arguing for balance in approach, which is more or less what you're saying here.

You may have a point about the inherent shyness of much of the gaming community, though I'm not quite willing to buy that any more than I'm willing to buy the dichotomy of "player" vs. "roleplayer" along a good / bad axis. Heck, passive roleplaying is perfectly reasonable if you're following a strict game theory philosophy. Learn the game, figure out the winning path, and bet all your chips on that winning path, ignoring the rest.

Of course, that defeats the purpose of a shared narrative, but that doesn't mean that everyone tries to play by the same rules.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If their distinction is accepted, I ultimately would fall into the "good roleplayer but not good player" group. As a biased party, I'm not sure I agree that a good roleplayer does not contribute much to the game, but I'll say that I've heard quite a few players in our area expound on that very idea. Perhaps part of the problem is that I tend to create characters who are inherently passive, although even the naturally active ones often become passive over time.

Then again, maybe this has to do with my Mars being in Pisces...

:)

(Reply) (Thread)

Then again, maybe this has to do with my Mars being in Pisces...

Bingo!

Nah. I'm fond of the sparse interactions I've had with your characters, mainly because your reactions have been so genuine-seeming. You inhabit the heads of the characters you play more completely than many other players, and that's valuable to me, even though it means I have to approach that roleplay from a different perspective than ... say ... with lillornyn or with kitty_bitch. It really is a matter of taste.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Hmm... actors can dispense with method acting if the playwright/screenwriter has written enough into the character; you don't need to come up with Hamlet's motivation, for example, you just have to read the play. Playing a character in a game, however, you have to be both author and actor, and so, either way, it falls to you to provide something of the character's internal life.

Because you don't have a script in front of you, there are going to be times when you, for whatever reason, can't come up with dialogue that perfectly expresses a character's emotional state; hopefully, you can fall back on emoting, gesturing, and other nonverbal cues (especially if you're LARPing), and hopefully other characters will react to those cues.

As for Wick's essay, I think it's a little vague for me to really respond to. 'Internalization' could be code for plain ol' bad emoting (they're trying to share, but it's not coming over as such), or someone who's shy (or new to the game), or someone who simply has different expectations as to how the game ought to be played. Maybe better than stigmatizing a whole (wide, vague) category of gamer, we should treat them as individuals and react accordingly?

(Reply) (Thread)

Maybe better than stigmatizing a whole (wide, vague) category of gamer, we should treat them as individuals and react accordingly?

Perish the thought!

Seriously, though, I have certainly run into the problems that Wick and his friend are attempting to counter with their philosophy. One of the strengths of LARPing is their immersiveness, and people who withdraw from the game for character reasons can be problematic, in that, unlike with tabletop, you can't as easily fall back on narrative descriptions to fill the conversational gap. It throws off the social dynamic of the game. I really have to give a nod to kitsune_zen's comment; the "best" players in a LARP are also part-time Storytellers.

That said, of course, you're completely on the mark. Each individual should be treated as an individual. It was a sufficiently interesting argument that I thought it might be fodder for my readers. :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I've had a love-hate relationship with Wick's ideas and games since my early involvement with L5R. I haven't read Mamet either (or if I have, it was a tiny little bit that didn't stick with me much), but I do think that his division does illuminate a possibly interesting thing to talk about:

Which is the different ways that players can enrich the experience of the RPG, for themselves and for others.

When I'm playing, I can focus on engaging with my character, trying to be very 'deep' in the character so that I as an actor am transparant to the character and the action of the narrative. This is the 'What could/would/should I (Character) do here?' Actor Stance.

I can also focus as a player on the story level, thinking about what things I can do as a player to use my character to make the game more interesting for other characters, which engages other characters, or maybe I create a scene/situation which other players engage with. This is more like the Author Stance.

I can make the game more fun for myself using both stances. I love the 'flow' experience of being fully 'in' a character that I dissapear into him/her.

I also love taking a look at the whole picture and making a decision that will engage other players, move the story forward, even at the expense of my own character's position/status.

I can also make the game more fun for others, but that depends on what values of 'fun' the other players are looking for.

If they want to see a player be soo fully in their character that they can look over at me on the tip of my seat, tapping the table because my character is nervous, shouting at one of his friends when he learns that their leader is to be executed on Demon TV, then I can make the game more fun for them by role-playing my character.

If they want to have their characters pushed or pulled into a new situation , if they're sitting in a chair thinking IC and then OOC "I'm so bored. I have nothing do to" and I make plot for them, or engage them directly, then I can make the game more fun for them, like if I'm stupid enough to steal a potent McGuffin from a demonically empowered Auctioneer and a demon, I can give them something to do instantly. I have to try to suss out what the different players and characters would want to be in the game to engage them on either or both of those levels (character or player).

So, yeah. I'm gonna cross-post this on my LJ and link back here, if that's cool.

(Reply) (Thread)

So, yeah. I'm gonna cross-post this on my LJ and link back here, if that's cool.

Of course. No objections from me.

I think Wick was posting in order to encourage more narrative engagement in LARPs, albeit doing so from a more confrontational position than I might. It's a Good Thing, I think, though I'd probably have approached the subject differently, were I him. Then again, I don't often adopt categorical statements in an effort to provoke discussion.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

John Wick channeling David Mamet? We're lucky the force of their joint iconoclasm didn't put someone's eye out.

Like any hyperbolic essay, there is some piece of moderately helpful advice, something about making sure you share your experiences & entertain your fellow players and so on...

But this also reveals real, non-trivial differences in how players can relate to a game. How is a player supposed to best get enrichment from a game - through digging into their own character and enjoying that point of view and the world through their eyes and their experiences? Or through mutual appreciation of the characters' and players' contributions? Maybe the two kinds of fun that are being balanced are that of experience and that of being a mutual audience.

(Reply) (Thread)

But this also reveals real, non-trivial differences in how players can relate to a game.

Exactly. This is why I pick and choose my games based on what I expect to get out of them. It doesn't matter if it's a tabletop, a LARP, a board game, or a computer game. If I want a narrative-heavy where the storytelling is shared amongst the players fairly evenly, then there are certain people and games I would gravitate toward. If I wanted number crunching and tactics, there are completely different venues I'd go with. He has a point for one audience, but I don't think it's generally applicable to all games ... or even all LARPs.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)