On Role Playing, Literature, and Acting [benlehman]

You're viewing

benlehman's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

This was an essay, but I realized that it can be trimmed to one line:

The only similarity between acting, literature, and role-playing games is that they all use words and, sometimes, plot arcs.

Relvevant Forge thread:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12711&highlight=

Anyone else have thoughts?

←

→

There are 22 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

Well, for one thing, they utilize overlapping skillsets: improvisational acting skills will make you a better roleplayer; writing coherently will make your NPCs and gamebooks better; doing any of the three will exercise your imagination, which will improve your abilities at the other two; etc.

As far as the gamebooks issue... well, I'm strictly talking about the play of RPGs here, not the authoring of them, which I consider to be largely a seperate thing. And clearly, art helps other art in the general sense (see reply to Kendra's second post, below.)

But I'm not so certain that acting skills really help role-playing. Let me clarify.

The "thing" of role-playing is, to me, the shared imagined space -- we are imagining a thing together. Role-playing skills, I think, can only be recognized inasmuch as they contribute to that collaborative imagined thing. Certainly, a degree of acting skill can help the role-player but, as long as other people understand what is going on in your imagination, your golden. Acting skills beyond that can actually be a little detrimental, I think. You might start treating your fellow players as audience, and not co-authors.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think authoring game materials and gaming are distinct, obviously, but closely linked, in the same way that reading and writing poetry or playwriting and drama are. They aren't the same activity; but extensive experience with the one is necessary (but not sufficient) to undertake the other.

It sounds like (somewhat unsurprisingly) you're looking for different things out of roleplaying than I am. The collaborative imagined thing is important to me, but so is what is actually said and done, and the alignment of game experience and (my) human experience [at least on a metaphorical level]. Acting skills are incredibly useful when it comes to those latter two.

I also disagree that acting skills can be detrimental, though perhaps a specific attitude towards acting can. Improv actors (as opposed to performance actors) tend not to care very much whether they have an audience, except as it impacts their ability to make a living.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I have often said that gaming is a lot like improv acting - somebody gives you a setting and you (with some other people) have to come up with ideas, with little prep work, to make it believable.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Certainly, a degree of acting skill can help the role-player but, as long as other people understand what is going on in your imagination, your golden. Acting skills beyond that can actually be a little detrimental, I think.

If this is true for you, then you must enjoy very different styles of game and get different things out of roleplaying than I do.

There are lots of books that I can't bear to read because, while the ideas or plot is interesting, the writing is poor, and that distracts me so much that I can't enjoy the story. I can't stand playing rpg's with people who say in a monotone "My character says..." instead of just talking in character. I don't think you have to be snobbish about it; there's no reason to scorn people who aren't great actors. But unless people are willing to make at least a minimal effort, I'm distracted out of the believability of the story. Part of the attraction of rpg's is that they can be visceral, they can engage your attention and your emotions in a more active way than listening to a story or reading a book. And good storytellers act as well. Good acting serves to engage other persons and can let you get more involved yourself. It makes the game seem more immediate and real.

I can't think of any time when good acting would detract from an rpg. Sure, people who are good actors may detract from an rpg in other ways, by selfishness, or scorn for others' attempts, or bogging a storyline down or acting in ways which are distracting or annoying in themselves. But none of the negative things I can think of are actually consequences of good acting itself.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I would also not say that character development or depth is the same thing as words or plot arcs. And yet I think that is something which benefit all three, and to at least some people seems necessary to all three.

Huh. I definitely agree that all through have it, but I would classify "character development" under "plot arc," most definitely. I'm interested that you don't.

Can you give an example of an interesting plot arc without character development, or an interesting character development without plot arc? I'd be curious to see that that looked like.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hmmmm - I always though of plot as something external, related to the world and GM-generated, while character development is player derived and generated. While the two things can intersect, they do not necessarily mean one another. For example, a character can have a very interesting and involved experience of going onto an adventure, but not really progress much from the adventure. Also a character can realize something profound from a small experience, which will not significantly change or affect that plot, but still be a development for that character.
I hope I am making sense here.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I have to say I disagree entirely with this. A character making a profound realization about something is just as much a part of the plot as the characters slaying the dragon at the end of the adventure. If the former isn't part of the plot, then it shouldn't even be mentioned because it can't concievably have any impact on the world (and I don't believe it's a realization or a decision if that's the case). If the latter isn't part of character development, then obviously slaying the dragon meant nothing to, and showed nothing about, the characters involved. Even the most venial and bored characters must be killing the dragon for SOME reason, and saying that the characters are willing to risk danger for gold or the safety of the community DOES develop character.

Also, character development isn't necessarily about a character changing. It can be just as easily and just as powerfully about revealing previously hidden aspects of the character.

I think that the distinction you're drawing between 'character plot' and 'overarching plot' is artificial, an artifact of the way most GMs have run games (and sadly, the way authors write books sometimes). All too often we see players who have characters with little emotional investment in the plot and a GM whose primary interest is in forwarding the Big Cool Stuff that he has planned and so ignores ways to make the BCS meaningful to the characters who are running through it. It's a style of gaming I'd like to see less of.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think there are distinct differences between character development and plot, and that there are even differences between character development and character plot. The earlier is best explained with examples in literature or film, the later is better clarified with roleplaying.

Before I get into my arguements let me further posit that thinking of them as seperate can be a good thing as well, because it encourages authors/storytellers to have aspects of both. A character that enters and leaves a story unchanged is a fundamentally boring character and thinking about things in terms of how events shape a character can make for a much more powerful story.

Character development and plot are both Part of the Story, but they serve different roles. Imagine a book written about, oh, say the civil war. The plot of the story is about the clash of the northern and southern armies and the shaping of a nation. The book might also delve into, say, a general's relationship with his wife which in this case is character development. It doesn't effect the plot except insomuch as it shapes the character and helps explain some of the actions that he takes within the war. If the development doesn't effect the plot at all it could be argued to be bad development, but it's essential purpose is to create depth to the character and a humanizing element to the story. A story consisting entirely of character development is a bad story, a story consisting entirely of plot is a dull story, both aspects are necessary.

Character development is different from character plot. Taking a slightly subtler interpretation on character development than above. This is clearest in roleplaying largely because the GM only has control over character plot, whereas the player has control over character development. One of the most frustating things I find as a GM is when I create plot for a character but, for whatever reason, it just washes over them aparently without effect. Best example that comes to mind is the French Revolutionary plot I gave to Christoph in 7th Sea, which was certainly plot, but to my frustration didn't particuarly lead to character development. Stuff was happening, but the character effectively remained unchanged, he never made any particuarly interesting decisions and the plot didn't help reveal anything new or interesting about the character.

Keeping the ideas of character plot and over plot seperate is good for a GM in much the same way that keeping both character development and plot in mind is good for a writer. It encourages a GM to look at each of his players and give them something to involve themselves in. The best character plots tend to tie the characters either to each other in interesting ways, or to the plot, as well as providing the character with potential avenues of development.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hm, when I first read this I thought 'No, no, no!' but now I think we're more or less agreeing but using slightly different terminologies. I'm not suggesting that one ignore scenario plot in favor of character plot, or vice versa. I'm suggesting that they ought to be integrated more.

I know that character development and character plot are not necessarily the same thing; however, I feel that they are inextricably linked. It's hard to have character development without something meaningful happening plotwise to them.

For instance, in 7th Sea, it seemed to me that one of the reasons that Cristophe didn't get character development or interesting decisions was that the things that were happening to him weren't presented as things that were meaningful to the character. They were dangerous, certainly, and he tried to take the most expedient way out of danger, but not emotionally involving. I'm not saying that was

To put what I said in better terms - I believe that it is necessary to integrate plot which targets, emotionally involves, and is meaningful to each single character/player with plot which targets the whole scenario (whether that's saving the world or whatever). I think a lot of GMs (though not many in FGS) present 'The Adventure' ("There is a haunted fortress north of town.") and expect their characters to run through it, because that's what you do, right? And sometimes players go along with it because if they don't then they don't get to roleplay at all. Like you said, the best character plots integrate the other characters and the overarching plot.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Also, character development isn't necessarily about a character changing. It can be just as easily and just as powerfully about revealing previously hidden aspects of the character.

It sounds like you're talking about character development in a literature sense: giving the character depth in the view of outsiders, including by making clearer what was already there. I was actually thinking specifically of character development in a forward direction, i.e character change throughout the course of a story.

I do think there are 'plot arcs' to a game or story which do not necessarily include every way in which a character changes, or at least, that do not include those details as central to the plot arc of the story as a whole. One issue, I think, is that there really are a great many arcs and stories within a single game. In a LARP, that's very obvious; in a tabletop, maybe less so, but still true. From my perspective, the story I play out in a game may be about how my character came to trust other people and let go her delusions until she turned into something quite different. For me, major plot changes in the scenario may actually be incidental to the story arc I care about. My character development may also be incidental to the stories played out by most other people. Whatever perspective someone has, it is likely that the best story for them will be something that includes aspects of character change, world change, drama and excitement, relationships with a variety of other characters, etc. But people's desired ratio of various aspects may
differ.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think where I'm coming from with that is that I get a lot of joy from creating new aspects of a character, as well as changing old aspects. For instance, there's a sardine-eating plot in Aralis. Until then, I hadn't thought that Marric had any opinion one way or another about sardines, but now I decide that to make things more interesting he really, really hates sardines.

Obviously, this is a deliberately stupid example, but that kind of thing happens, and I have a lot of fun with it. You can say on the one hand that that aspect of Marric's character was 'already there', and that I'm revealing it, but at least to me it _is_ character development. In fact, I can work backwards from it and create entire chunks of backstory, other personality traits, etc. etc. I'm not sure quite where the divide is in roleplaying between 'changing a character' and 'creating new facets of the character', as long as neither one contradicts events which have been shared with others and thus can't be redacted. They seem like aspects of the same thing.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I would guess that many of us have read and enjoyed books that lack much in the way of character development, i.e. change, over the course of the story. These books may not be of the sort that people would call great literature, but can be enjoyable nonetheless.

Long series about a particular character often do this. It's another adventure of... (Sherlock Holmes? Conan? Tarma and Kethry? Drizzt Do'Urden?) Sure, for some of these you can make a case that the character does change, but there are certainly plenty of stories where that change, if it occurs, certainly isn't a major focus.

And sometimes it's less fun. Of the Jhereg books, I really don't like Teckla, where the protagonist goes through a lot of (depressing) change. He doesn't change much over the course of some of the others, and frankly, I prefer seeing him do his normal thing of figuring it out and getting the better of the other guys.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Also, each of them has a participatory/creator and an observer aspect.

In the creator aspect, each of them has the quality of starting from an initial seed or collection of basic information and expanding into something much richer. And in all three, some measure of worth is based on the degree, complexity, and delicacy of the expansion.

I suppose these things could be summed up by saying 'they are all art', though.

Yup. That's one I definitely forgot. They are all artforms.

I would like to note that this participatory/creator aspect and observer aspect are so tightly linked in RPG that distinguishing between the two is vanishingly difficult, and I think that that is a big source of what makes RPGs cool.

In fact, the only other form of human expression where creator, participant, and observer are so closely linked may well be Myth.

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

Back to the acting - process dramas have that same kind of link.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Well, I've never participated in a process drama, so I have no clue. Could you describe how you go about doing a process drama?

yrs--
--Ben

[link] [parent] [reply]

minervaish organized it and may be more able to describe it, but here is a basic idea. A few people in the room get up and improv a scene (trying to define the setting and name some of the people). The someone, say the person organizing it, sums up what information was gleamed from the scene and some other people generate a new scene, all the while trying to form an actual story.
It is a lot like filming a movie out of order.

[link] [parent] [reply]

A lot of the comments people are making are coming from the idea that 'roleplaying' is at least in most respects equivalent to 'acting out what a given character would do'. I think that while this is a big part of roleplaying, that's not what it is - or perhaps it is but what I'm thinking of when I say 'roleplaying' needs a new term.
It seems to me that roleplaying (in whatever definition) has a lot superficially in common with acting or writing, but that the most useful point of overlap between writing, acting, and roleplaying is an appreciation for and understanding of what makes a good story. Of course, you can have an RPG without worrying about that; lots of D&D campaigns do that. And one thing that makes a good story is a consistent world with consistent characters - otherwise, your 'story' isn't a story at all, just a series of scenes, so when people worry about the validity of their knowledge of the world and their characters they hav a valid point.
Roleplaying hits some sort of middle ground between scripted acting and improv acting, I think. In stage acting, you know your character's actions, statements, and world, and so the emphasis is on delivering these actions and statements in the way that best emphasizes that character's part in the action. In most improv, the 'shared imagined space' is pretty much based, and the rules for adding to it are based more on aesthetic judgements of 'what would be a fun/interesting/meaningful thing to do here' and 'how can I disrupt the flow of this scene the least'. With most roleplaying, though, a player will know _some_ things about the world, and _some_ things about their character's actions, but have to balance going along with the world with a similar aesthetic judgement about story and meaning. The skills do overlap, but obviously training in one thing makes it harder to separate out the relevant skills - a trained actor may find it difficult to work without a script, for instance.

(As an aside, it's interesting to me that I just used 'RPG' while referring to D&D, but that 'roleplaying game' seems to have different connotations in my head...)

I am interested that you think there is a difference between several people "Acting out what a given character would do" in a shared world and "making a story." The former implies rather strongly that the characters are consistent, and I've found that a story tends to develop itself out of the actions of the characters. I would say that sacrificing your character's validity and concept for the sake of the story is detrimental to the forming of said story.
In essence, if you don't meta and step outside and think about the big picture, but instead focus on playing your character and interacting with others and the world, I believe the story will develop on its own.

Perhaps I am not understanding you very clearly though?

[link] [parent] [reply]

You can't sacrifice your character's validity for a story, like I said, because once you do it's not a story anymore, it's a collection of unrelated scenes. If your character acts inconsistent. But 'inconsistent' doesn't mean 'exactly as I've previously percieved him to act', it means 'so that all previous actions from this character maintain validity'.

I know that I have sometimes redefined what my character did on the fly - looking back at an action he took and saying 'Wow, I thought that meant X but now I want it to mean Y'. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as both explanations fit all the data that you can't change (the world, what other people have seen of your character, etc.)

I think that whether 'story' inevitably happens depends on your definition of the word. It doesn't fit mine - at least not my definition of 'good story'. Lots of people in the real world interact with other people and the world around them and don't make a story I'd want to tell. Maybe it is a story, but I wouldn't be satisfied roleplaying it. And whether you think that's true or not, I _think_ you'd agree that considering things from at least a somewhat meta-perspective will help to make a BETTER story.

I think we talked about this in the context of Covenant - setting up relationships beforehand in such a way as to cause interesting conflicts later. That's the same thing.

[link] [parent] [reply]

May