PDA

View Full Version : How to RP with no acting chops



Khi'Khi
2017-02-07, 11:18 AM
One of the biggest frustrations I've seen for people trying to RP isn't necessarily coming up with an interesting character, but rather portraying an interesting character. I've known people who are incredibly creative in character building, only to fall flat in terms of bringing that character to the table.

Sometimes people just plain can't act (like myself.) Some people are embarrassed when they attempt to do a voice, or feel silly trying to get into character. Anyone have any similar experiences, or tips on how to help people portray the character they've worked so hard on?

Segev
2017-02-07, 11:24 AM
If you don't think you can "act" the character, don't. Instead, describe what they do. Describe how they say it. If it's the best you can do, it's okay to tell, rather than show. Showing is better, but will come with practice. The important thing, at the root, is to communicate the character to the other players and the GM, regardless of whether you can "pull it off" in acting.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-07, 11:39 AM
As Segev said, you should be able to get by with just telling instead of showing to start. It also helps if your first characters are more subdued in their personalities. You need not make the joking beer swilling prankster your first character. Sometimes making a more cold and detached character with some hidden depths can be easier to roleplay since you need only say a few things ever.

But your main problem is you think you suck at expressing a character or acting. Well let Jake the dog tell you something you need to know:

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/87/8797266167c34c67372ab7887cfdea2a303f2ef6c554a47607 689e1232a3f9da.jpg

Don't be upset if you have trouble at first. Don't be afraid to make a flub, or say something weird or silly. You are in a group of people who are pretending to be elves, dwarves, and wizards. This whole game is silly, and if your friends are worth anything, they will smile at your attempts and roll with it. And if you aren't comfortable yet, take your time. Just have fun with rolling the dice and listening.

D&D and associated games are a beautifully unique social game, in that they are played with people that are all on the same side as you. There is no competition, you are all on the same team except the DM, who really is sort of on your side too.

But overall, don't let some feeling of obligation towards acting get in the way of having a good time. If you have a good time, it will be contagious. You don't have to be anything else but friendly and there. Anything else, the rest of the group will help out.

Tanarii
2017-02-07, 11:41 AM
An easy way to ease into it is "be yourself, but ..."

Make a list of 4-5 motivations that are different from yours. Less if you can't keep them in mind. Try to choose things that will come up somewhat often to affect decisions you make. Then just play yourself, personality-wise, make decisions as you would anyway, but modify them appropriately whenever one of those motivations comes into play.

This is basically the same as an actor saying "what's my motivation in this scene". Except, y'know, less pretentious. But also less in depth. It makes it easier because it doesn't dissociate yourself from this 3rd person. So it makes roleplaying, or in-character decision making, more snappy & flow far more naturally.

Might not work as well if you're socially awkward and don't know what to do most of the time. :smallbiggrin:

Edit:

Sometimes people just plain can't act (like myself.) Some people are embarrassed when they attempt to do a voice, or feel silly trying to get into character. Anyone have any similar experiences, or tips on how to help people portray the character they've worked so hard on?Ah okay, this is part of your problem. Silly voices are not acting, are not roleplaying, and are not expressing your character. You've been exposed to people being silly and calling it roleplaying.

It's unfortunately common for people to mistake silly voices for roleplaying in TRPGs. Even long-term veteran DMs and Players make that mistake.

GungHo
2017-02-07, 11:50 AM
You do not need to put on silly Monty Python voices in order to roleplay. Speak like you normally do. Consider your character's motivations and have your guy act like that. You can be blunt with the GM and say "I am not a thespian and I don't want to be one". If he gives you a hard time and won't let you roll diplo or penalizes you because you are disallowed to outline what your guy is saying but have to actually speak the dialog word for word, then I'd say you probably should excuse yourself, as you're going to run into other issues with "not doing it right" and you will be miserable.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-07, 11:53 AM
Ah okay, this is part of your problem. Silly voices are not acting, are not roleplaying, and are not expressing your character. You've been exposed to people being silly and calling it roleplaying.

Roleplaying is silly, and until you embrace feeling silly as a good thing, you'll have a real hard time having fun with it. Not every moment is silly, but fear of being silly will be the biggest barrier in roleplaying you'll find.

Tanarii
2017-02-07, 11:58 AM
Roleplaying is silly, and until you embrace feeling silly as a good thing, you'll have a real hard time having fun with it. Not every moment is silly, but fear of being silly will be the biggest barrier in roleplaying you'll find.Being silly in a silly game is awesome. Being silly and calling that roleplaying is a classic mistake. Roleplaying is making decisions for your character. Not silly voices.

Edit: What I mean to say is be silly. It's great. Its fun. But don't claim that's what roleplaying is.

LibraryOgre
2017-02-07, 12:57 PM
Go with a double reverse Flanderization. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization)

Start with your incredibly sketch-like character. You have maybe one motivation and a catch-phrase that you use all the time. You are a barbarian. You don't trust wizards, you like to hit things with axes, and you're tactless and uncultured. Need something to do in the moment? Fart. Burp. Pee on a building. Hit the person who is annoying you with your fist or an axe... or threaten to do so. Complain about wizards and their outland magic. Play the absolute stereotype to the hilt whenever you are called upon to do something in character.

(Note that this doesn't mean that you're pointlessly obstructive to the party. Does everyone need to Fly up there, and only the wizard can cast the spell? You are going to do it, but you are going to bitch about it, and promise to curse the wizard if his magic harms you... and anything bad for the rest of the day becomes his fault, because he cast his hexes on you.)

As time goes on and you get comfortable with your sketch, add some details. Add a second catch phrase, applicable in a different situation... maybe one is a curse, the other is a statement of awe. Maybe you decide that ALL wizards are bad, but YOUR wizard is lucky, so you go from hating him to asking him for advice on EVERYTHING. You aren't necessarily a 3D character at this point, but some forced perspective makes you look like one.

It's roleplaying by being the background character of a sitcom, forced by contract negotiations to carry the show.

daniel_ream
2017-02-07, 12:58 PM
You are in a group of people who are pretending to be elves, dwarves, and wizards. This whole game is silly, and if your friends are worth anything, they will smile at your attempts and roll with it.

I once had a player playing a Spanish caballero with the most Ukrainian Spanish accent I've ever heard. It was hilarious, but he was trying so we just ignored it and ran with it.


Being silly in a silly game is awesome. Being silly and calling that roleplaying is a classic mistake. Roleplaying is making decisions for your character. Not silly voices.

Edit: What I mean to say is be silly. It's great. Its fun. But don't claim that's what roleplaying is.

Remove the pedantic taxonomy fetish pickle from your fundament. "Roleplaying" is what we're doing when we sit down to play a roleplaying game. Any further specificity is Emersonian foolish consistency.

JAL_1138
2017-02-07, 12:58 PM
Roleplaying is silly, and until you embrace feeling silly as a good thing, you'll have a real hard time having fun with it. Not every moment is silly, but fear of being silly will be the biggest barrier in roleplaying you'll find.


Being silly in a silly game is awesome. Being silly and calling that roleplaying is a classic mistake. Roleplaying is making decisions for your character. Not silly voices.

Edit: What I mean to say is be silly. It's great. Its fun. But don't claim that's what roleplaying is.


"Feeling silly trying to act in character" does not equal "feeling like you have to act silly at the table."

"Roleplaying being inherently silly" does not equal "roleplaying means acting silly at the table."

Same term is being used to mean two different things here.

Someone might feel like trying to pretend to be Thurghar Stronginthearm, Dwarven Paladin of Moridin, with a tragic backstory and an understated dead-serious manner, still feels really silly. And it is! We're sitting around a table throwing little pieces of plastic to put rules onto make-believe time and pretending to fight imaginary monsters in fictional worlds. That's a silly thing to do. But also awesome, because it's fun. None of that means anyone at the table has to act like a clown or otherwise over the top, which is the other meaning of "silly."

Darth Ultron
2017-02-07, 01:35 PM
This is common enough. A good half of all players can't role-play or act. Tons of players can play the mechanical side of the game, even at optimum levels...but they can't role play or act.

Though, you don't ''need'' too. You can play the game just by descriptions. Just describe what your character does, but don't ''act it out''. Like you'd say ''I tell the guards a clever joke'', but you don't really have to really tell a joke.

Of course if you want to learn how to act....well maybe do some theater or join a acting group or take a class. And you should be able to find plenty of how too books on the topic.

You might want to look at why you ''can't act'' exactly, what can be done there specifically?

One trick the has worked out great for many of my players in the past is to write down a detailed personality. Something of at least a couple pages, enough so that you know the personality very well. Then you just need to be that personality.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-07, 02:34 PM
*snip*

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CerebusSyndrome

Basically doing this? Starting with a goofy character but slowly over time they become three-dimensional, serious, and relateable?

If only there were a comic strip where D&D characters did that, even if it were only stick figures.

kyoryu
2017-02-07, 02:41 PM
Roleplaying isn't about voices, or even quirks.

It's about deciding what htis other person would do in this situation (or, more technically, what you would do in that role).

So anything can be roleplaying, so long as it's driven by the character. And orc is bearing down on you. What do you do? That's roleplaying. The house is on fire, what do you do? Still roleplaying.

Some of the best roleplaying is action - action as it relates to decisions, especially tough ones. Do you save your party member, or the innocent bystander?

Segev
2017-02-07, 02:46 PM
Roleplaying isn't about voices, or even quirks.

But it is about Quarks. If you're not played by Armin Shimerman, you're not RPing.

LibraryOgre
2017-02-07, 03:34 PM
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CerebusSyndrome

Basically doing this? Starting with a goofy character but slowly over time they become three-dimensional, serious, and relateable?

If only there were a comic strip where D&D characters did that, even if it were only stick figures.

I prefer "double reverse Flanderization", partially because it's funnier to say, but also because you're intentionally going from single-joke to more nuanced, without, necessarily, needing to up the drama factor.

Tanarii
2017-02-07, 04:06 PM
Remove the pedantic taxonomy fetish pickle from your fundament. "Roleplaying" is what we're doing when we sit down to play a roleplaying game. Any further specificity is Emersonian foolish consistency.No clue who Emerson is, but if he's saying "whatever we do sitting down at a TRPG game" isn't roleplaying, then he's right. It's one specific aspect of that which is the everything. And that specific aspect is making choices of what to do with your imaginary character.

That can include things like silly voices. But silly voices (and talky-time) are not roleplaying. At best they are a sub-set of it. At worst they have nothing to do with actually making choices for your imaginary character, but someone is still thinking it's what roleplaying is all about.


"Feeling silly trying to act in character" does not equal "feeling like you have to act silly at the table."
Fair point.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-07, 04:22 PM
I prefer "double reverse Flanderization", partially because it's funnier to say, but also because you're intentionally going from single-joke to more nuanced, without, necessarily, needing to up the drama factor.

"Because it's funnier to say" works for me.

daniel_ream
2017-02-07, 06:30 PM
No clue who Emerson is

Imagine my surprise.

kyoryu
2017-02-07, 07:17 PM
Imagine my surprise.

Probably doesn't know Lake or Palmer, either.

redwizard007
2017-02-07, 07:57 PM
So much great advice...

Have FUN!!

Unless Vin Diesel sits down at your table, you probably aren't gaming with actors, so why all the pressure?

My daughter turns 8 this month, and I'm about to introduce her to gaming. Guess what? I'm going to have wacky voices, Ukrainian goblins, French gnomes, gypsies, princesses that ride dragons to battle, all the greatest stereotypes that make us look stupid... and I'll do it because it will be fun. It will suck her into the world. Make it come alive in a way cartoons never could. It will make her smile. And then, as she starts to get it, I'll get things a little more serious. But silly is my "in."

Silly makes memories. Silly breaks down insecurities and inspires creativity. Silly, is the way I always felt introducing new players, or explaining RPGs to someone. Silly is not a bad thing. It's a way to deal with awkward situations that is socially acceptable. Silly is only a problem if you never move past it and the rest of the table does.

D+1
2017-02-07, 11:04 PM
If you don't think you can "act" the character, don't. Instead, describe what they do. Describe how they say it. If it's the best you can do, it's okay to tell, rather than show. Showing is better, but will come with practice. The important thing, at the root, is to communicate the character to the other players and the GM, regardless of whether you can "pull it off" in acting.

Very much this.

NichG
2017-02-07, 11:42 PM
Rather than focusing on the external stuff like using a different voice, try building a character around a question which you don't know the answer to yet, and make answering that question for yourself be the focus of how you think during game. The idea is to give yourself a direction of motion, a motivation which should align your character's actions with some kind of underlying sense. That way, the character holds together without you needing to specifically make a constant effort towards it (which is exhausting, easy to slip up, etc). I suggest a question with an ultimately positive trend or which assumes eventual success, because then you won't feel like you have to cling to the negative things about your character in order to preserve their personality, which is a problem I've seen before.

What I mean is something like, lets say IRL you've never been forced to fend for yourself in a foreign country where you don't speak the language. You could make a character around the question 'when you're cut off and isolated but at the same time need the help of others to survive, how do you manage to thrive?'. That might suggest certain character aspects that could be taken to an extreme (character is completely mute, etc) but it's good to temper that and instead make it something more subtle but pervasive (or it'll get in the way and become all-consuming).

For example, in this case you could do something like play a character who has only recently arrived in these lands and who is not confident with the local language or easily misunderstands things. Combine that with some kind of burning reason to be here, which is complex or hard to express. Maybe an investigation or the completion of some kind of ritual or duty specifically associated with the character's culture that others won't easily understand.

Or, another example, you could have a character who was forcefully drafted into a mercenary group or organization, ostracized, and eventually fled or was abandoned, and ask how they're going to turn those experiences into a source of strength or manage to use them to survive. If those experiences created some shock or trauma or sensitivities, how will the character confront those things - what would be necessary for them to overcome those experiences?

Then, once you have an idea of what the character needs, just behave accordingly. As long as you're pursuing those things, you don't really have to think about the RP, it will just happen. Furthermore, by choosing a question that might have some relevance to a direction that you yourself could change in, you can basically use your own self-discovery as you play to have authentically novel reactions. Rather than saying 'this is how the character will develop' you can actually be surprised and change course and learn in-character, which lends a lot of depth to the experience compared to just following a script.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-08, 12:04 AM
No clue who Emerson is,


“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

"It's OK to say whatever you feel, even if you contradict yourself, and if someone calls you it, compare yourself to someone great". :smallconfused:

Martin Greywolf
2017-02-08, 03:35 AM
As a long-time DM, just-as-long-time amateur actor and occasional LARPer, I can tell you a shocking thing: acting and role-playing don't really have that much in common. While it's true that a significant amount of skills overlap, those are more often than not related to being able to do things well while people are watching you.

A caveat: there are some ways of acting, or some acting exercises, that come close to RPing, but they tend to be rather niche. Actors in general don't have to deal with improvisation to a degree a RPer has to, have a script, know the motivations and secrets of most (rarely not all) of the characters they interact with, etc etc.

Long story short, all acting will give you is ability to punch up your presentation a bit. If that is your problem, then go for it, but it isn't, most of the time.

If you did your homework and have an interesting character made up, and he looks like the Fighty McStereotype in the game, then - 9 times out of 10 - you have a problem in RPing, not in acting. What you need to do is deliberately look for ways to expose that backstory/character flaw/virtue you have. That doesn't mean your character wants them to be exposed, more often than not he wants the exact opposite, but you as a player need to do it.

You usually need to get the DM on board with this. A great DM will give you these opportunities without any sort of prompting you need to do on your part, but DMs like that are few and far between. A good DM will indulge you once you ask, and probably give you mad props for doing it at all.

One neat trick to use is to make your character be deliberately wrong in a small thing, and then acknowledge it - this is known as personal growth (and not in fictional characters, either). As an example, if you have a character who is suspicious of goblins, clue in your DM to place a goblin on his side at some point, then mistrust the goblin. Don't go as far as actually attacking, just voice your in-character opinion that all goblins are inherently untrustworthy. Once you are proven wrong, grudgingly apologize and move on. After 2-3 such incidents, change your opinion to most goblins are inherently untrustworthy, and there you go. A character arc.

To make other players more interested in your character, drop hints. Don't reveal information unless you're asked, just say that you know goblins are untrustworthy because you learned it the hard way, and you don't really want to talk about it. Most players will be really, really curious about what the hell it was that made you not trust goblins after two or three times - you can then decide whether to reveal it or not.

You may have noticed that this has more in common with writing a script than acting.

Once you get to LARPing, that is both acting and RPing, and bloody hard to do as a result.

Tanarii
2017-02-08, 07:17 AM
― Ralph Waldo Emerson[/I]

Lol thanks for the context. Explains why I don't know him though. I don't read literature by so-called American writers. American High School in the 80s put me off that really early by including some of the absolute worst examples ... Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Hemingway. /gag

Edit: (troll in the playground for my title. How appropriate. :smallbiggrin:)

Lorsa
2017-02-08, 07:18 AM
One of the biggest frustrations I've seen for people trying to RP isn't necessarily coming up with an interesting character, but rather portraying an interesting character. I've known people who are incredibly creative in character building, only to fall flat in terms of bringing that character to the table.

Sometimes people just plain can't act (like myself.) Some people are embarrassed when they attempt to do a voice, or feel silly trying to get into character. Anyone have any similar experiences, or tips on how to help people portray the character they've worked so hard on?

Like some people mentioned, roleplaying doesn't necessarily need to involve acting. However, due to your thread, I will go by the assumption that you indeed want it to involve some measure of acting.

I spend most of my time as a GM, and based on the reactions of my players (like for example when they wanted to award ME roleplaying XP for my portrayal of a middle-aged alcoholic single mother of one of the PCs) I feel that my level of acting is at least decent.

The first and foremost tips I have for you is: practice. If someone ever told you that unless you have a talent for something you can't do it, they were wrong. Just about everything is a skill that can be improved.

For more specific tips it would be beneficial to know what your problem actually is, and what you are trying to accomplish.

For example, is it an issue of being shy in the group, afraid of having people laugh at you? The only real solution to that is to play with people whom you truly feel comfortable with.

As for making a "voice", what type of voice are you aiming at? I am horribly bad at changing my dialect or accent consciously. After having taken some song lessons, I know have at least some idea with how to start practicing that skill; but I don't have the time or energy for it. Changing pitch is easier for me, so that I do for my various NPCs.

One thing that I find easier as far as "making a voice" goes, is to change speech pattern. Maybe this could be a good start for you as well? For example, make a character who speaks slowly and focus on that. Or someone who speaks in short sentences. Then move on to longer, elaborate sentences or someone who speaks swiftly. Maybe have a character that swears a lot, or not at all? One that always says "I am" and "you are" instead of "I'm" and "you're". Just pick one small change and focus on that. Over time it will get easier.

The secret to doing "a voice" well is to not overdo it. When you change pitch, don't do it much. Overacting is worse than no acting. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking "female = high pitch, male = low". Find a pitch that fits the personality you want to convey (lower pitch is usually seen as more powerful and forceful, regardless of gender). If you're aiming to speak faster, don't aim for Chris Tucker in The Fifth Element, just look to speak a little faster. Humans are very sensitive to small changes in voice.

Next thing on your list is the often forgotten body language. When I portray my various NPCs, I try to sit a little different. Your posture doesn't have to be relevant to the situation at hand to convey or portray a character. For example, if you have a confident and forceful character, take a deep breath, straighten your back, fill your chest with air, relax your shoulders and place your hands in front of you on the table in the classic "V-shape" (all fingers touching each other, pointing forward as a V). If you have a more contemplative character, lean back a little and close your hands in your lap in the way Christians often do when praying. For an open and friendly character, place your arms at your side with the palms open.

After that, you can move on to practice a little with your face. Frowning slightly, smiling a bit more, looking a tiny bit surprised, all these can be used to portray a character. As before, don't overdo it, we are very sensitive to slight changes as most of our communication is based on these non-verbal signals.

As a tip for how to practice; do whatever you do when you roleplay, use your imagination. When you walk to the bus or drive your car or whatever, imagine your are your character that has been placed in a rather mundane situation by the GM and play out what you would say in your head. Think about what sort of sentences or phrases seems "right" for your character and get into their speech pattern. While you probably won't end up in the same situation in the game, it helps you establish a "routine" of sorts.

So to sum up. There is nothing magical about "acting" in roleplaying. You don't need it to have a fun game. If you do WANT it, remember it's a skill you can practice. Start small, like say with speaking slower and work yourself up. Remember not to overdo things, small changes are perfectly fine.

Lorsa
2017-02-08, 07:26 AM
Probably doesn't know Lake or Palmer, either.

I do know of THAT Emerson. Wish I could play like him. Still not sure it is the one Emerson that was referenced here?

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-08, 08:59 AM
Probably doesn't know Lake or Palmer, either.

Palmer is my old dog! How did you know him?

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-08, 09:02 AM
*snip*
So to sum up. There is nothing magical about "acting" in roleplaying. You don't need it to have a fun game. If you do WANT it, remember it's a skill you can practice. Start small, like say with speaking slower and work yourself up. Remember not to overdo things, small changes are perfectly fine.

Are you a theater major by any chance?

Joe the Rat
2017-02-08, 09:34 AM
In short, this is about having fun. If you're sweating the acting tools (voice, inflection, speech pattern, body language and nonverbals, cosmic dairy farming, props, etc.) to where it's not fun, don't do it.

The easiest place to start is figuring out how the character would say things (direct, baroque, dodgy, big words, misused big words, innuendo laden), how they'd feel, and then start thinking about making their "voice" different from your own.

Making mistakes is fine. You're not being paid to do this. Variety isn't going to give a scathing review. Experiment. Play with ideas. Have fun.


But it is about Quarks. If you're not played by Armin Shimerman, you're not RPing.True dat.

Lorsa
2017-02-08, 11:09 AM
Are you a theater major by any chance?

I am a physicist actually. Sometimes I wish I had tried amateur theater, but I was always too busy roleplaying.

Segev
2017-02-08, 11:16 AM
I am a physicist actually. Sometimes I wish I had tried amateur theater, but I was always too busy roleplaying.

Physicists unite! :smallbiggrin:

LibraryOgre
2017-02-08, 11:16 AM
I am a physicist actually. Sometimes I wish I had tried amateur theater, but I was always too busy roleplaying.

It's not too late. I have a friend I met through gaming who's been doing amateur theater when not being a NASA-affiliated engineer.

Red Fel
2017-02-08, 11:32 AM
Sometimes I wish I had tried amateur theater, but I was always too busy roleplaying.

Sometimes I think the only difference is the level of improvisation.

Side note, to the OP, consider joining an informal improv group. As in, the kind that rarely performs, except for each other. Not only is it a fun way to hang out and make friends, it also really helps get past any awkwardness or self-consciousness about RPing.

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-08, 01:35 PM
I am a physicist actually. Sometimes I wish I had tried amateur theater, but I was always too busy roleplaying.

The way you got technical about posture made me think you had some formal lessons.

KillianHawkeye
2017-02-08, 02:03 PM
Ah okay, this is part of your problem. Silly voices are not acting, are not roleplaying, and are not expressing your character. You've been exposed to people being silly and calling it roleplaying.

It's unfortunately common for people to mistake silly voices for roleplaying in TRPGs. Even long-term veteran DMs and Players make that mistake.

I agree that doing a silly voice in and of itself is not acting/roleplaying. I do, however, find it to be a very useful tool to instantly get me back into character if I've established a unique voice for them in the past, or to help flesh out a character's personality when starting out.

Doing voices for different characters allows me to avoid the need for copious notes about a character's personality because it acts as a memory key. In other words, the personality is stored with the voice in my mind. These days, between class and alignment, mental ability scores, and deciding what kind of voice to give them, my characters' identities pretty much write themselves.



Of course, I guess I should say that when I first started out, I was in the very same situation as the OP: timid and unsure of my roleplaying ability. It's only through many years of practice and learning that I've gotten to this point, and I'm happy to say that I now consider myself to be an excellent roleplayer.

2D8HP
2017-02-08, 02:09 PM
Lol thanks for the context. Explains why II don't read literature by so-called American writers. American High School in the 80s put me off that really early by including some of the absolute worst examples ... Steinbeck, Fitzgerald, Hemingway. /gag Loved Steinbeck (fiction that can bring me to tears), hated "The Great Gatsby", or more specifically all of Fitzgerald's characters in it (my Dad's list of those who are "going up against the wall, come the revolution", came to mind as I was reading it). Hemingway I didn't have much of a response to.

Anyway, thread topic:


The first version of what became D&D was the rules system inside Dave Arneson's mind.

The rules are there because players want some idea of what the odds are first, and it's easier to choose from a catalog than write on a blank page.

When D&D started there was no mention of role-playing on the box!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/SfSTvUzCu4I/AAAAAAAAA9A/9bUyti9YmUk/s320/box1st.jpg
While the 1977 Basic set did indeed say "FANTASY ROLE-PLAYING GAME"
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/dungeons_and_dragons_dd_basic_set_1stedition_origi nal_box_holmes_edition.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C386
The phrase "role-playing" was not part of the 1974 rules.
http://i2.wp.com/shaneplays.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/original_dungeons_and_dragons_dd_men_and_magic_cov er.jpg?zoom=4&resize=312%2C494
Notice that the cover says "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames", not role-playing!
I believe the first use of the term "role-playing game" was in a Tunnels & Trolls supplement that was "compatible with other Fantasy role-playing games", but early D&D didn't seem any more or less combat focused than the later RPG's I've played, (in fact considering how fragile PC''s were avoiding combat was often the goal!) so I wouldn't say it was anymore of a "Wargame". I would however say it was more an exploration game, and was less character focused.
Frankly while role-playing is alright, it's the 'enjoying a "world" where the fantastic is fact' part that is much more interesting to me.

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs'
Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser
pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find Dungeons & Dragons to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last
bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!
E. Gary Gygax
Tactical Studies Rules Editor
1 November 1973
Lake Geneva, WisconsinWhile I'm ever grateful to Holmes for his work translating the game rules into English, perhaps he (an academic psychologist) is to be blamed for mis-labelling D&D with the abominable slander of "role-playing" (a psychological treatment technique).
It's too late now to correct the misnomer, but D&D is, was, and should be a fantasy adventure game, not role-playing, a label that I have mixed feelings of.

“If I want to do that,” he said, “I’ll join an amateur theater group.” (see here (http://www.believermag.com/issues/200609/?read=article_lafarge)).
While Dave Arneson later had the innovation of having his players "roll up" characters, for his "homebrew" of Chainmail:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/04/the-original-dungeon-masters/

At first the players played themselves in a Fantastic medievalish world:
http://swordsandstitchery.blogspot.com/2016/10/in-celebrate-of-dave-arnesons-birthday.html?m=1

So a wargame was made into a setting exploration game, and then was later labelled a "role-playing" game.
While it's still possible to play D&D as the wargame it once was, I'm glad that the game escaped the "wargame" appellation, which makes the game more attractive to those of us with 'less of an interest in tactics, however I argue (to beat a dead horse), that the labeling of D&D as a role-playing game is hurtful ("Your not role-playing, your roll-playing! etc.).
Just label D&D an adventure game, and people can be spared all the hand-wringing, and insults when acting and writing talents don't measure up to "role-playing" standards, and instead we can have fun exploring a fantastic world together.
Please?

Except....

...now that I'm only doing PbP, I find that I really miss hearing and making the voices and facial expressions of face to face table-top role-playing (it was painful for me to write that), so yeah while I still think we shouldn't criticise those who "roll play" instead of "role-play", I do find "amateur improvisational acting" part of the fun.

If it is a goal is to encourage "role-playing" (improvisational acting), doing it by example seems the best way to me.

Tanarii
2017-02-08, 02:22 PM
I agree that doing a silly voice in and of itself is not acting/roleplaying. I do, however, find it to be a very useful tool to instantly get me back into character if I've established a unique voice for them in the past, or to help flesh out a character's personality when starting out.It can be a very helpful tool to the person doing it. For the other people around the table, it can vary from helpful to extremely distracting. It depends on how skilled the person doing it is, the tone of the game, and of course the other person's personal bias and preferences. My personal bias is that it bothers me mostly when someone is trying to do it in all seriousness, clearly think they're quite skilled at it when it's terrible, and they clearly think it's important to their roleplaying ability.

Other than that I got no problem with your Scottish dwarf, haughty pseudo-intellectual High Elf, or sibilant whispering dark mage. Besides, another bias I have is I like cliched tropes as shortcuts to telling the other people at the table something about your character. So in that regard, yeah, silly accents are a great roleplaying tool. My argument was that they aren't what roleplaying is all about. I just made it too stridently.

OTOH, I'd never thought of them as mnemonic hooks for remembering the characters motivations/personality before. Which is making me /facepalm because it's so obvious. :smallbiggrin:


Of course, I guess I should say that when I first started out, I was in the very same situation as the OP: timid and unsure of my roleplaying ability. It's only through many years of practice and learning that I've gotten to this point, and I'm happy to say that I now consider myself to be an excellent roleplayer.
Honestly, it came most easily to me once I realized I already WAS roleplaying, just by making decisions for my character.

Various people like to draw lines between out-of-character and in-character, or themselves and their character. But really those are more like fuzzy boundaries than hard lines. If someone is having trouble because other people are telling them or making them think it's some kind of hard line, and that's making it difficult for them, the place to start is by just discarding that idea. Start with the character being an avatar of yourself, personality wise, and decision making wise. Make your decisions in game as if it were you there, with those skills/classes/whatever appropriate to the game. Now add some motivations that aren't you, so when they come up, you'll make in-character decisions based on them, instead of just being you. Done.

This makes things flow much faster, because you don't often have to stop and think about what to say or what you would do ... unless that's a natural part of who you are of course. And as time passes and you become familiar with the idea of making decisions based on different motivations, and (for individual characters) the specific motivations that are not-you sink in, it becomes even easier.

kyoryu
2017-02-08, 03:06 PM
I do know of THAT Emerson. Wish I could play like him. Still not sure it is the one Emerson that was referenced here?

Just a bad joke, (deliberately) referencing the wrong Emerson.

Lorsa
2017-02-08, 03:07 PM
The way you got technical about posture made me think you had some formal lessons.

Ah, of course. I am mostly self-taught, combined with the power of youtube body language videos. Being technical I think is mostly derived from being, well, an academic. :smallsmile:

Pictogram
2017-02-09, 03:52 AM
i know their are different styles of play I'm just not a huge fan of the " I do this" sort of style as it is a group game, and when a person does that it cuts of synergy and flow with the rest of the group. I think one of the best parts of RP games is the social aspect and in a way it makes me feel like everyone is playing perpendicular rather than work/interacting as a group. I know people are socially awkward but in some regards I think it's a sense of pride or unwillingness to drop ones guard or act silly, and I can't be more bored in a game if everyone is not interacting.

RazorChain
2017-02-09, 05:25 AM
No clue who Emerson is.

It was an insult.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. "

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-09, 07:32 AM
It was an insult.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. "

Ralph Waldo Emerson


Finish the rest of the quote, where Emerson is either making it clear he's being sarcastic there, or if he's serious, goes on to say "Say whatever you feel, don't worry about being a hypocrite, and if someone calls you out, say you're just like all these great people of the past."

daniel_ream
2017-02-09, 08:52 AM
If that's what you got from the quote...well.

Segev
2017-02-09, 09:29 AM
To be fair to Ralph, his quote does specify a "foolish" consistency. Implying that non-foolish consistency is just fine. The debate may now rage over what constitutes "foolish consistency" vs. "not-foolish consistency."

Tanarii
2017-02-09, 09:51 AM
It was an insult.I chose to ignore that possibility. :smallwink:

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-09, 10:00 AM
To be fair to Ralph, his quote does specify a "foolish" consistency. Implying that non-foolish consistency is just fine. The debate may now rage over what constitutes "foolish consistency" vs. "not-foolish consistency."

The rest of the statement seems to indicate that any consistency should be considered foolish, according to Emerson. "Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day."

Segev
2017-02-09, 10:02 AM
The rest of the statement seems to indicate that any consistency should be considered foolish, according to Emerson. "Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day."

Were I of a mind to try to take something useful from that, I'd probably inject an idea that tomorrow's thoughts are different from today's due to new evidences. But yeah, in its own context, that's awfully hypocritical.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-09, 10:16 AM
Were I of a mind to try to take something useful from that, I'd probably inject an idea that tomorrow's thoughts are different from today's due to new evidences. But yeah, in its own context, that's awfully hypocritical.

It was that sort of crowd.

During the time that Thoreau wrote of as follows -- When I wrote the following pages, or rather the bulk of them, I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only. I lived there two years and two months. -- he was routinely receiving care packages from his mother and sister, visiting Emerson for meals, and going into town almost every day. http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/literature/truewalden.html

Segev
2017-02-09, 10:33 AM
It was that sort of crowd.

During the time that Thoreau wrote of as follows -- When I wrote the following pages, or rather the bulk of them, I lived alone, in the woods, a mile from any neighbor, in a house which I had built myself, on the shore of Walden Pond, in Concord, Massachusetts, and earned my living by the labor of my hands only. I lived there two years and two months. -- he was routinely receiving care packages from his mother and sister, visiting Emerson for meals, and going into town almost every day. http://webpages.charter.net/sn9/literature/truewalden.html

Perhaps because I just watched the episode of Stargate SG-1 "The Nox" again last night, this reminds me of that eponymous race.

What we're presented with seems to be a small family unit of living-close-to-the-land absolute pacifists who have marvelous, perhaps magical invisibility and healing capabilities. They are played up as primitive but wise for their pacifism. They scorn the SG team's concerns, viewing the SG team's willingness to use violence to defend themselves and the Nox as "ways" of which the Nox do not approve.

They are, overall, quite judgmental, and keep talking down to the SG team as "very young."

At the end, and only at the end, they reveal that they have a hyper-advanced sky-city and tech that, even without using violence of their own, can render the bad guys incapable of harming them. All the while continuing to scoff at the SG team and humans in general for using violence to defend themselves and others. Which is awfully hypocritical when the only reason they can get away with it is that they're so far beyond the enemy that the enemy can't really hurt them.

This family unit was, as far as I can tell, merely on a camping trip. But they portrayed themselves as rugged, one-with-the-land wise ones. Which is the connection to the quoted story above, in my mind.

If the jerks had simply given a reason why the SG team need not worry for this "primitive" and "defenseless" tribe's safety, the SG team would have probably shown their "ways" more respect. They just didn't want to see these people hurt. But no, no, being cryptic and insisting you'll be fine without showing that you actually understand the threat nor that you can deal with it, and insulting people who have only "fighting back" as a viable means of defense for themselves, is clearly how you demonstrate your superior ways. It's those ignorant "very young" earthlings who should have heeded, without any question.

I mean, it's not like listening to higher-tech aliens without question has ever led to great evil in the setting, right?

Lorsa
2017-02-09, 12:08 PM
Physicists unite! :smallbiggrin:

I've always thought that the world would be much better if it was run by physicists!

Tanarii
2017-02-09, 12:34 PM
I've always thought that the world would be much better if it was run by physicists!
I have no desire to run the world, nor do I think it would be better if I was running it.

Edit: Of course, I'm only trained as a physicist. By trade I'm IT. So maybe I don't count. :smallamused:

Segev
2017-02-09, 12:40 PM
I've always thought that the world would be much better if it was run by physicists!


I have no desire to run the world, nor do I think it would be better if I was running it.

Edit: Of course, I'm only trained as a physicist. By trade I'm IT. So maybe I don't count. :smallamused:

I'm a computer engineer working in algorithm development. I just have an MS in physics. :smallcool:

But I don't really want to take over the Earth. I want to rule the Solar System. And change the world through advanced technology.

Red Fel
2017-02-09, 02:41 PM
I'm a computer engineer working in algorithm development. I just have an MS in physics. :smallcool:

But I don't really want to take over the Earth. I want to rule the Solar System. And change the world through advanced technology.

It takes an engineer to build a tank. It takes a liberal arts student to use it to conquer the world.

I have a science background and a humanities profession. Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair!

Stealth Marmot
2017-02-09, 04:05 PM
I'm a computer engineer working in algorithm development. I just have an MS in physics. :smallcool:

But I don't really want to take over the Earth. I want to rule the Solar System. And change the world through advanced technology.

Oh sure changing the world through advanced technology sounds great but it all ends with a frustrated user of this new technology being held by the metaphorical hand through rebooting the gorram thing by an IT guy like me.

And when they start asking WHY it broke guys like me have to give a giant shrug, say we don't know, and pass on mentioning that the technology created and forcibly implemented by the megalomaniac may run on orphan tears, and them running low means another round of "mysterious accidents" happening to parents of otherwise happy children.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-09, 04:13 PM
Perhaps because I just watched the episode of Stargate SG-1 "The Nox" again last night, this reminds me of that eponymous race.


What we're presented with seems to be a small family unit of living-close-to-the-land absolute pacifists who have marvelous, perhaps magical invisibility and healing capabilities. They are played up as primitive but wise for their pacifism. They scorn the SG team's concerns, viewing the SG team's willingness to use violence to defend themselves and the Nox as "ways" of which the Nox do not approve.

They are, overall, quite judgmental, and keep talking down to the SG team as "very young."

At the end, and only at the end, they reveal that they have a hyper-advanced sky-city and tech that, even without using violence of their own, can render the bad guys incapable of harming them. All the while continuing to scoff at the SG team and humans in general for using violence to defend themselves and others. Which is awfully hypocritical when the only reason they can get away with it is that they're so far beyond the enemy that the enemy can't really hurt them.

This family unit was, as far as I can tell, merely on a camping trip. But they portrayed themselves as rugged, one-with-the-land wise ones. Which is the connection to the quoted story above, in my mind.

If the jerks had simply given a reason why the SG team need not worry for this "primitive" and "defenseless" tribe's safety, the SG team would have probably shown their "ways" more respect. They just didn't want to see these people hurt. But no, no, being cryptic and insisting you'll be fine without showing that you actually understand the threat nor that you can deal with it, and insulting people who have only "fighting back" as a viable means of defense for themselves, is clearly how you demonstrate your superior ways. It's those ignorant "very young" earthlings who should have heeded, without any question.

I mean, it's not like listening to higher-tech aliens without question has ever led to great evil in the setting, right?




...the activists who insist that all our problems come from leaving behind the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and that we should all return to chasing down antelope and foraging for tubers. Typically, they're posting this online, via computer and internet, using electricity water and/or gas from the grid, between driving trips in their car on road networks to get to the grocery store or the seed store or wherever, if they're not flying on airplanes to conferences held at hotels to meet with their fellow activists.

Yeah...

Segev
2017-02-09, 07:01 PM
Oh sure changing the world through advanced technology sounds great but it all ends with a frustrated user of this new technology being held by the metaphorical hand through rebooting the gorram thing by an IT guy like me.If I get my druthers, that won't be an issue; they'll be interfacing directly with it and learning to use it the way they move their own arms.


And when they start asking WHY it broke guys like me have to give a giant shrug, say we don't know, and pass on mentioning that the technology created and forcibly implemented by the megalomaniac may run on orphan tears, and them running low means another round of "mysterious accidents" happening to parents of otherwise happy children.No, no, that's not to power the technology. That's to ensure we have sufficient Batmans to run our future crime-fighting forces. It's been shown in studies that a Batman is the most effective police force.



...the activists who insist that all our problems come from leaving behind the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and that we should all return to chasing down antelope and foraging for tubers. Typically, they're posting this online, via computer and internet, using electricity water and/or gas from the grid, between driving trips in their car on road networks to get to the grocery store or the seed store or wherever, if they're not flying on airplanes to conferences held at hotels to meet with their fellow activists.

Yeah...
Not going to reply here, 'cause it's getting a little off-topic and real-world, but your PMs are full so I can't send you what I'd like to say. (I think you'll find it amusing.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-09, 07:21 PM
If I get my druthers, that won't be an issue; they'll be interfacing directly with it and learning to use it the way they move their own arms.


Ugh, no thank you. Don't even care much for touch screens, I'll stick with KBM.




Not going to reply here, 'cause it's getting a little off-topic and real-world, but your PMs are full so I can't send you what I'd like to say. (I think you'll find it amusing.)


Cleared some space.

Segev
2017-02-09, 07:31 PM
Ugh, no thank you. Don't even care much for touch screens, I'll stick with KBM.

Oh, this isn't some sort of gesture-interface. I'm talking full neural interface. (Not that I have any tech in development for that right now. But a man can dream.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-09, 07:36 PM
Oh, this isn't some sort of gesture-interface. I'm talking full neural interface. (Not that I have any tech in development for that right now. But a man can dream.)

I knew what you meant, it just... gives me the heeby-jeebies.

Segev
2017-02-09, 07:41 PM
I knew what you meant, it just... gives me the heeby-jeebies.

Ah. Okay, fair enough.

*goes back to manufacturing Batman through orphanation*

RazorChain
2017-02-10, 12:43 AM
Finish the rest of the quote, where Emerson is either making it clear he's being sarcastic there, or if he's serious, goes on to say "Say whatever you feel, don't worry about being a hypocrite, and if someone calls you out, say you're just like all these great people of the past."

Not really, this is from his work Self-Reliance where he stresses....self reliance, individuality, not following the flock like a little sheep and coming up with original thoughts and ideas by yourself and relying on your intuition.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

Here he is saying that consistency is for little minds adored by little people who are unable to come up with original thoughts by themselves. The great soul has nothing to do with it and should rather concern themselves with their own shadow.

Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Here he stresses that tell your mind now and if suitable change your mind the next day, your ideas don't have to be consistent and great minds are not afraid to come up with ideas that contradict their other ideas. This is why great minds are so often misunderstood because they aren't afraid to be inconsistent and contradict themselves.

So Emersonian foolish consistency is most decidedly an insult, it is tantamount to accuse somebody of being small minded, following the flock and not being a great thinker.

Max_Killjoy
2017-02-10, 07:27 AM
Not really, this is from his work Self-Reliance where he stresses....self reliance, individuality, not following the flock like a little sheep and coming up with original thoughts and ideas by yourself and relying on your intuition.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall.

Here he is saying that consistency is for little minds adored by little people who are unable to come up with original thoughts by themselves. The great soul has nothing to do with it and should rather concern themselves with their own shadow.

Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”

Here he stresses that tell your mind now and if suitable change your mind the next day, your ideas don't have to be consistent and great minds are not afraid to come up with ideas that contradict their other ideas. This is why great minds are so often misunderstood because they aren't afraid to be inconsistent and contradict themselves.

So Emersonian foolish consistency is most decidedly an insult, it is tantamount to accuse somebody of being small minded, following the flock and not being a great thinker.

I guess that's another interpretation.

Personally, I think that he was full of himself, or just full of it.

Dashuto
2017-02-10, 10:43 AM
I solved much of these issues by bringing it all to chatboxes even if I could gather people in RL. Its even easier to DM that way and you can use voice if you need to. Its true you miss out on having snacks together and the social aspect, but people feel much less nervous to type things up in character than to put on voices in front of 3-7 others in RL.

RazorChain
2017-02-10, 04:08 PM
I guess that's another interpretation.

Personally, I think that he was full of himself, or just full of it.

Oh we can both agree on that....I'm no fan of transcedentalism or Emerson or other Frogpondians.

marycrook
2017-02-11, 01:38 AM
I was also looking for same.