|
Post by guitarspider on Jan 8, 2014 8:35:53 GMT -8
I'm not suggesting actors don't have personal input, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the player role is much more obviously personal than the actor role, because there is no meta-level to acting that the audience is aware of. Your decisions as a stage persona are typically predetermined, even though you do give the performance your own twist, and that provides a certain cover to show vulnerability. That's not the case in roleplaying or improv theatre. Maybe it doesn't matter much in the end though.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 8, 2014 8:55:26 GMT -8
On acting I'll just add : Bertolt Brecht. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by guitarspider on Jan 8, 2014 9:08:16 GMT -8
Different kind of meta level I believe. Good point though.
|
|
|
Post by Grog on Jan 8, 2014 12:03:39 GMT -8
I'm not suggesting actors don't have personal input, and maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the player role is much more obviously personal than the actor role, because there is no meta-level to acting that the audience is aware of. Your decisions as a stage persona are typically predetermined, even though you do give the performance your own twist, and that provides a certain cover to show vulnerability. That's not the case in roleplaying or improv theatre. Maybe it doesn't matter much in the end though. Hmm..You're right to an extent, but I think that the whole thing is very much on a continuum. As with most things, whether or not a performance is "personal", I think it depends on the player/actor. Many improvers and roleplayers hide behind any the "cover" of their characters just as much as a conventional actor hides behind the "script". In fact, I think that some roleplayers would do well to remember that they are playing a character and that they are not their character ( see metagaming).
I guess I just don't think rpg players are all that emotionally vulnerable when they are playing. Unless, of course, the games are being used for therapy. Then the players probably are vulnerable. In that case, the point of the game is to help someone work through their shit, not to have fun creating a shared story. Creating a shared story just doesn't require that much emotional vulnerability. Some people like to perform, others don't. In my hypothetical rpg tournament the ones who aren't playing in order to perform would likely not participate.
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Jan 9, 2014 0:53:49 GMT -8
guitarspider Well I actually wasn't saying it as 'you weren't there' to you personally . . . To be bluntly honest the comment that set me off wasn't actually yours . . . It was some else's, an admittedly much younger player who made an observation about what gaming was like 'back then' based on an extract from a rule book from 'those days'. I just found such an opinion' interesting' as, if I guess their age correctly, then at that point in time the sperm had yet to meet the egg. I suppose a better explanation would be "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" - just because a set of brief rules crafted on a budget, time constraints and in an atmosphere of developing the hobby for the first time didn't say 'this is how you RP' doesn't mean it didn't happen. As I say I can't speak for OD&D but I can vouch for 1e . . . we definitely RP'ed back then in my neck of the woods . . . As far as RP goes I can't say that that has changed much at all. What has changed is that there are more, and different, interesting mechanics, new genres and the presentation of products is miles ahead. Aaron You mean me of course and my comment about assassins and poison. My age is in fact 35 (shame on you for making a lady tell her age) so while I was not hanging out with Gygax I started roleplaying when I was 14 with my brother and his group (he is 4 years older). So sure, I am not a greybeard (I aint got no beard at all) but I dont need to be somewhere to read about it, hear about it and JUDGE IT. I wasnt in Nazi Germany but I have an opinion about the people that did nothing to stop a mad man. I wasnt around during the time of the Inquisition but I can speak my mind about how the Catholic Church took its mandate to a whole other level and managed to plunge humanity in true DARK ages. Similarly (but less dramatic) I can tell what I had heard and read about the Golden Age. Frankly speaking indeed maybe I was harsh... BUT Some people say 'ha, maybe Pathfinder is not so bad if you play it with home rules BUT, you cant play with home rules cause then you are not playing pathfinder and the munchkins will complain' to which I reply: 'Well you then have to play with arbitrary level caps, reactions from NPCs based on a chart where you roll randomly on and peasants chasing an armed and armored assassin cause that IS the rules of the Game you tell me is superior' And then they reply with a quote 'No because GG said all Gms are equal and I am a unique butterfly and hence I am still playing 0 edition or whatever ha!' So my 'beef' comes from the double standards. If I play Pathfinder tweaked to fit my group I cant say Pathfinder is a good game cause I am not playing pathfinder + the imaginary munchkins will complain but if YOU play tweaked 0/1st then all is fine cause thats how its meant to be played... and here is a dungeon module for your trouble but remember... its not about the dungeon its about roleplaying 100 encounters that are more weird and with no cosmology whatsoever and also DONT tell us this was the game back then cause well this was only for tournaments. -=- Break... I play everything. I have played many games and some I like more than others. Frankly speaking I am tired of heroic fantasy (small exception for Exalted where its Heroic Fantasy bordering the Super Heroic) and in general my group does DnD to cool off... so yes, in fact right now whenever we pick up a game of DnD it is to kill stuff and not to save princesses. I cant remember the last time that we played traditional DnD (i.e. good guys) rather than horrible individualists/evil characters... even in a Midnight Campaign we had last year we were Shadow agents working for a powerful Legate (but had no Legates or Chanellers in party to keep it interesting). My overall point as mentioned earlier is that you can have fun with every game both as GM and Player just as long as you go with it. If you are not having fun, dont play. Dont try to change those around you to fit your style just so you can have fun (hint CC and Skizzle this is for you). Speaking as a woman we know that we have an inherent wish to change our partners to the image we have of them... after many a failed relationships and a failed engagement I can tell you it doesnt work. And it wont work for you either. You can choose to embrace the group and the game they play/want to play, you can chose to sit back and let someone else GM and try to enjoy it or you can chose to go away and let them have their fun... but out of all these scenarios I find the 3rd the saddest. @ Grog Yep... we say from time to time with some friends that we are the luckiest people out there for having touched RPGs. I see my grandma watching TV no end and my grandpa just goes and plays cards at a local old people cafee and I think how awesome it will be if when I am retired I just hang out with my RPG friends and roleplay all day long... all the ideas we have had will come to reality. I cant wait to be old.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 9, 2014 2:34:27 GMT -8
Arcona. I think your judgment of those old men is a bit harsh. My objection to judging them is twofold - 1) I don't believe any rule books are representative of the play style of the subscribing group . . . too much individual interpretation goes into each persons reading of any rule 2) I have seen the proper Grey Beards playing (briefly) when I was just starting with RPG's . . . They roleplayed just like people do now: no better or worse. To this caveat I'd add a lot of modern game innovations are really just the designers looking around themselves and seeing what people are actually doing and writing it down. via-a-vis better designed games are an improvement in presentation rather than Roleplaying (ie: acting is acting, whether it's classical or method: there's that famous quote from Marathon Man of a conversation between Laurence and Dustin. We all know it and iPhones aren't good for protracted dialogue. Basically the result can be the same regardless of the process used to get there . . . That's just a matter of choice and preference) I've no problem with Pathfinder or tweaking the rules, though I am acutely aware that it's providence possibly pays more to RoleMaster than OD&D As to BAUS's and the cries of 'munchkin' every five seconds: I TOTALLY 100% AGREE (though I personally wouldn't say that of Skizzle simply based on comments in a single thread) On the inquisition: be careful because a) the dark ages predate it, being the period of time after the fall of the Roman Empire bringing a dark age of ignorance as much learning was lost. b) there is little actual evidence to support the existence and conduct of the inquisition as often represented in except a very small number of extreme cases. The inquisition operated for centuries, well into contemporary times and at the time period most often cited the acquittal rate (without torture) was higher than 95%. Most reported abuses were probably anti catholic propaganda - just like Guy Fawkes Day in the UK. (Nope I'm not a Catholic, if I wasn't a committed nontheist I'd be an Atheist or a Protestant). I only mention this because I used to say EXACTLY the same thing til an historian friend of mine took me to task over it . . . my penance? to correct similar errors . . . :/ Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Arcona on Jan 9, 2014 2:53:05 GMT -8
Ok... we are on the same page then . I am as harsh with them as they are with me. So when someone says 'that edition (or that game) is a munchkin fest' or 'they are playing X hence they are not real roleplayers because its a rulefest/dicefest/munchkinland' then I kick back by calling them out. I mean the idea that 'hey, GG told me I can change rules so everything is fine but you cant change the rules and call it 3.5' is ludicrous. I think the next step will be 'hey you are playing L5R? Well you are playing DnD 1st edition cause GG said you can change stuff... so you changed everything... hence its still DnD 1st'. Yes illogical but I expect it anyday now. In the end every new or old group (grey beards, neckbeards or no beards) play as they play. There were old munchkins (Hint: Cavalier//Cleric of Mystra etc) as there are new munchkins. But for some reason the 'old guard' romanticize the old and vilify the new to an extreme level.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Jan 9, 2014 3:19:12 GMT -8
Totally agree. Yes I too await the expected onslaught from the BAUS zone (population: one) Aaron
|
|