Play-style question (Actor stance)

[Wendell_Burke]

I was wondering if there’s anyone here who prefers to play rpgs in the Actor stance by the following definition…

The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have, playing as their character, speaking in their characters’ voice. This style, of course, includes stepping out of character to narrate your characters’ actions and gestures, out-of-character communication, etc., And who also prefers to play more serious stories (which does not necessarily mean gritty or dark, but playing realistic(ish), well-developed characters within the genre and delving into nuanced character and story aspects)?
Basically, on a scale of 1-10 of how much do you favor this style of play (10 being the highest), how would you rate yourself on this scale?

I'd like to avoid mocking or combative comments about this or any other play-style, please.

Thanks!

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Wendell_Burke

I was wondering if there’s anyone here who prefers to play rpgs in the Actor stance by the following definition…

The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have, playing as their character, speaking in their characters’ voice. This style, of course, includes stepping out of character to narrate your characters’ actions and gestures, out-of-character communication, etc., And who also prefers to play more serious stories (which does not necessarily mean gritty or dark, but playing realistic(ish), well-developed characters within the genre and delving into nuanced character and story aspects)?
Basically, on a scale of 1-10 of how much do you favor this style of play (10 being the highest), how would you rate yourself on this scale?

I'm mostly that way, with one important exception: I have played characters whose role is essentially comedic. I'm thinking here of Bertran, my character in a friend's campaign in the world of The Phoenix Guards and Five Hundred Years After, a Dzur nobleman, duelist, and hunter with a strong personal sense of honor but not a lot of brains; I modeled him on Bertie Wooster, right up to his being terrified of his ferocious Aunt Tazendra. He was a blast to play! I particularly remember the scene where one of the other PCs left the party and showed up again in disguise, and all the other PCs recognized him and started taking bets on how long it would take Bertran to do so—and Bertran overheard a bit and said, "The Horse, my friends! I know not what you are wagering on but I would gladly stake an Imperial!" I was consciously looking for dialogue that would make him entertainingly clueless. . . .

[johndallman]

This is how I much prefer to play. I find it much easier to portray a character by thinking as them, as best I can, rather than by attempting to consciously model and describe their behaviour.

I can, to some degree, maintain two tracks of thought, one for a character or NPC I'm running. The other is used for GMing or for being the host of the session, since most of the gaming I do happens in my living room.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by johndallman

This is how I much prefer to play. I find it much easier to portray a character by thinking as them, as best I can, rather than by attempting to consciously model and describe their behaviour.

That sounds more like what I've heard called "immersive play," which is not at all my style. I'm more "have you tried acting, dear boy?"

[ericthered]

For me, this is an ideal I'd like to be better at, but am currently pretty bad at.

[Wendell_Burke]

Originally Posted by johndallman

This is how I much prefer to play. I find it much easier to portray a character by thinking as them, as best I can, rather than by attempting to consciously model and describe their behaviour.

I can, to some degree, maintain two tracks of thought, one for a character or NPC I'm running. The other is used for GMing or for being the host of the session, since most of the gaming I do happens in my living room.

Hey John, thanks for responding! I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between what I described and " by attempting to consciously model and describe their behaviour." Can you elaborate please? Thanks!

[Wendell_Burke]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That sounds more like what I've heard called "immersive play," which is not at all my style. I'm more "have you tried acting, dear boy?"

Hey whswhs, thanks for responding! I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making between what I described and "have you tried acting, dear boy?" I'm talking about acting as your character and trying to play the game from their perspective, barring good meta to establish cooperative play. Can you elaborate please? Thanks!

[Wendell_Burke]

Originally Posted by ericthered

For me, this is an ideal I'd like to be better at, but am currently pretty bad at.

Hey Eric! Thanks for replying! How do you feel you're having trouble? I tend to think it's not about being a professional actor, but having the constant desire and will to develop your skills. If you want to get better, that's certainly doable.

By the way, I wanted to thank everyone for their replies! I appreciate it!

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Wendell_Burke

And who also prefers to play more serious stories (which does not necessarily mean gritty or dark, but playing realistic(ish), well-developed characters within the genre and delving into nuanced character and story aspects)?

Sorry, but I can't get past this. Why serious? Comedy deserves far more respect than it gets. Actors play comedic roles all the time, and by a similar token I play comedic RPGs like Paranoia and Toon and play comedic roles in other RPGs. I've found a deep satisfaction, for example, in deliberately choosing to play sidekicks to other people's more heroic, protagonist-focused approaches. A realistic, well-developed, nuanced, but not particularly serious character or such a character in a not particularly serious story is a perfectly valid object for an actor to pursue.

[Wendell_Burke]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

Sorry, but I can't get past this. Why serious? Comedy deserves far more respect than it gets. Actors play comedic roles all the time, and by a similar token I play comedic RPGs like Paranoia and Toon and play comedic roles in other RPGs. I've found a deep satisfaction, for example, in deliberately choosing to play sidekicks to other people's more heroic, protagonist-focused approaches. A realistic, well-developed, nuanced, but not particularly serious character or such a character in a not particularly serious story is a perfectly valid object for an actor to pursue.

Hey! I stressed ‘serious’ because I’m curious to see how many people are interested in these kinds of stories. You are correct of course, in that “Actors play comedic roles all the time”, and I understand and appreciate that you play and enjoy comedic role-playing games. Nothing wrong with that. However, how you feel about comedic stories and characters is how I feel about more serious and dramatic ones. That’s all.