On Role Playing, Literature, and Acting : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
| 14 |
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
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...)
(no subject)
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?
(no subject)
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.