Follow on from past tense thread!

[Phalynx]

This is a follow on from the thread(s) about past tense which has made me ask some questions.

When I role play a character, I put myself in their position, I try and think like they would, I try and respond and adapt as if I was that character in that position. I aim to supress my own responses and tune into the core persona and conception of my character. In some ways its a light-weight form of method acting and the ultimate improvisation.

Events in game are happening to me while I am playing that character. This is hard going with new characters, I need some time to warm to my characters. It's why I don't believe I can play women - their thinking is too alien to me, my female characters end up as chix with dix.

However chatting to other people I get a very different feeling, in fact something that to me is not roleplaying.

I have a little expereince of role-playing games,
I have quite a lot of experience of role-playing excercises within my work
I have done some role playing in the bedroom -as it were-

For a role playing exercise to work, people have to treat it as realistic as it can be and immerse themselve in their character, their position and their feelings. This requires some level of empathy and emotional intelligence and is just not possible to do effectively for some people. Those that do it superficially develop only superficial learning or understanding.

What other people have described to me as their approach seems more like bedroom role-play. Put on a costume, make some exaggerated gestures and a silly accent. Difficult to see depth in that.

This relates to the tense. If its present tense its because things are happening to me as my character. The past tense suggests things are happening to my chess piece like character.

It probably sounds like I am being critical but I am not. I have yet to reach the level of role playing I aspire to. But I am curious.. what does it mean to you??

[notsure]

My mind is still back in your bedroom.

What was the question again?

notsure

[Oasis]

Now I'm distracted too. I'm not sure what you're asking.

[Phalynx]

I'm asking people to give me their impression or ideas of what the experience and pracice of role playing, particularly in Cantr, is to them, hopefully more clearly than me....

[Doug R.]

I've always been totally immersed in my characters, even from my D&D days in highschool. It always irritated me to no end when games devolved into BS sessions. All my characters are aspects of myself, and I've actually caught myself talking in-character in the chat. Actually, I once caught myself talking in-character in real life. I feel my characters, at least in terms of emotion and personality, are indistinguishable from myself, so for me, the term "role-playing" is actually incorrect, because I could never force myself to play a personality that is not within me somewhere. I use Cantr as a method of dissecting out aspects of myself and analyzing them in an isolated and exagerrated way. 75% of my character's development never makes it onto the page. That is why the game mechanics are utterly meaningless to me. I could care less about repairs or anything like that. Basicly, Cantr is a free psychologist. And I have fun too.

I've chatted with players, however, that purposely distance themselves from their characters and treat them as objects. They've told me it's because getting involved with them at the level I get involved with mine frightens them or makes them uncomfortable. This is valid. We are all wired differently and have had different life experiences.

[wichita]

I've always been totally immersed in my characters, even from my D&D days in highschool. It always irritated me to no end when games devolved into BS sessions.

Never play D&D at Maelstrom's house then. PUT THE BOOK DOWN AND ROLL THE DAMN DICE!!!


Personally I become my characters too. I wouldn't say that they are so often extensions of myself, especially my younger characters with more questionable moral ethics, but I do get down in there and just let things flow rather than overanalyzing the game events. When I start to think about "what would this character do?" is when they start to lose consistency.


I can, however, snap out of it quickly, and do not feel rattled by many details. Maybe I sort of view the world through my characters' peripheral vision?

[Doug R.]

wouldn't say that they are so often extensions of myself, especially my younger characters with more questionable moral ethics,

My younger characters, the ones I made on a whim, I do enjoy playing the least, because they either overlap other characters or they are just empty shells. That's why I promised myself that I won't make any more. I can mentally jump in and out of character easily, but emotions are a bit tougher. My OOC mood frequently colors my play, and events in game frequently alter my OOC mood.

but I do get down in there and just let things flow rather than overanalyzing the game events. When I start to think about "what would this character do?" is when they start to lose consistency.

My characters always surprise me. That's why I love playing so much. They're so unpredicatble, and we share the same brain. I'm continually amazed and amused.

[Mafia Salad]

I started looking at Cantr like an ongoing written improve skit from the first week I started playing. I certainly put myself into the characters frame of mind when I play, and the times that I didn’t, reading back on what my characters said it seemed out of character.

The one thing that I did find that makes Cantr different from theater improve comes from the nature of Cantr. It is text based and a slow paced game, so a lot of the subtle things you can do in drama don't translate well to Cantr.

Where stances, gestures and facial expressions that take more of a secondary role in drama and set the mood of the characters for their dialog to have the desired impact. In Cantr they take a very prominent position simply by being in the **. Any emotes with the intent of being subtle will come across as more melodramatic for the other players.

Personally I think that melodramatic traits in characters is a good thing for Cantr, because the really subtle and simple characters are boring to play with and the really deep and almost riddle like characters, who are played more by the player in their own mind outside of Cantr than they are played by typing on the page, are difficult to interact with unless they are played very well and leave some hints as to what the player is thinking but not typing for the other players to pick up on. But melodrama when the characters player thinks they are being subtle is just awkward because neither side of the role play situation is getting responses that would make sense to them.

I guess this is a round about way of saying that I emerged myself in my characters while I played them, but I would often use exaggerated traits, gestures, or other melodramatic qualities to anchor my characters so that other players will have a starting point where they can explore into the depths of my characters if they care to, or something simple to associate with my characters if they don’t. And also my characters would develop out from that anchor so (hopefully) they seemed more like a believable and understandable character without being a cookie cutter employee or employer, guard or town leader.