Foundry Log: Immersion with Kate, part one
From AdamWiki
Adam waves to Kate. "So here or quiet room?"
Kate says "Here is completely fine, if other people want to listen. If they don't want to hear about acting, a room works, too.""
Method Acting == Immersion?
Adam says "Cool. So. You method act, I assume. Right? You role-play, too. I assume you know what I mean by 'immersion' in the RP context? (There are a bunch of meanings in that context, so we'll have to make sure we're on the same page, probably.)"
Kate says "I ..would be hesitate to characterize 'Method Acting' as one specific thing, unless you're actually talking JUST about Lee Strasberg's techniques. But! yes, basically 'method acting' (however you do it, Strasberg or Meisner or Stanislavski or Chekov) is done by immersing one's self in the character, in the situations surrounding the character, and so on. I /think/ I know what you mean in the RP context (if it the same as acting, as I've detailed), but just to clarify: are we on the same page?"
Kate says "Method acting splintered wildly, especially after Stanislavski. But I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. (thus, all the names)"
Adam says "I can deal with the complexity and dial you back as necessary. Just talk any way that makes you happy."
Adam says "Some immersive role-players talk about intentionally getting lost in the character. They talk about the character as if it's a real person, and talk about the decisions they make as players as if the fictional character -- not they -- made those decisions. Do you get that in any form of method acting?"
Kate says "Will do! ... And yes. That really is a form of method acting; it moves the character from puppet being controlled by player (or script) into a living, breathing being who is living his or her life. Generally, we (actors) try NOT to know what is happening next to our characters. In a scene, a common note given is "You don't know what your next line is". You don't. So, if you have players not actually puppeteering, if you will, you have a bunch of method actors on your hands."
Adam says "Is the general goal that not 'puppeteering' produces better acting and more believable story?"
Kate says "For acting? yes. You don't want to pretend. You don't want to look like you're pretending. You need to BELIEVE that YOU are Joe Black, not 'Character Joe Black". Without BEING, you are not. If that makes sense. So, if I had a character who, say, only ate pie, I would eat only pie. (in theory.)"
Does the script get in the way?
Adam says "How do you deal with the script then? Isn't that a string of the puppeteer?"
Kate says "A lot of method acting also alters you physically (pie, for example), so that's sort of a side effect. ... The script is a tool. And theatre/film differs here: writers are, generally, allowed NOWHERE NEAR! sets on film. In theatre, dear God, if you don't follow that script, they're THERE. I personally like to look at the script as a "guideline" of sorts. These are the type of words my character uses (if she curses a lot, if she throws around SAT words like water, etc), the script should illuminate, give you hints, and so forth."
Fred says "SAT words? You mean, like words you find on the SAT tests?"
Adam says "Yes, but the character doesn't know about the script. So how does the actor use it when the actor has shoved 'self' way down and is letting 'character' take over?"
Kate says "Yeah. :) It was just an example; really, what I meant was how a character talks, as given in the script, would show you more about the character."
Kate says "That's not an easy question, Adam. The goal (and this is hard to achieve) is to know the script, but not know it. (kind of like how we know the camera is there but don't acknowledge it) -- The character doesn't know where the scene is going, you shouldn't either. But you also can't CHANGE the scene entirely. I think someone once said to me "90% character, 10% you" as a general guide."
Kate says "So the script is a ..map, if you will."
Adam nods and grins. "You're not here to answer easy questions."
Fred chuckles
Kate was mislead! No worries. I'm just warning you that they might not /totally/ make sense.
Adam says "I'm comfortable with that. This makes more sense than most immersion discussions I have on the net."
Fred says "Indeed"
Is personality fluid?
Adam says "Is personality that fluid? When you've become a character for a while, do you lose sense of 'you'?"
Adam says "What I mean to get at is this: Are you /becoming/ another person (replacing yourself with a character)? Are you adding another personality onto your own? Are you putting on a mask or filter?"
Fred says "Personality is definitely that fluid. Remember the Stanford prison experiment?"
Kate laughs. "Good." ... "Yes. It's possible. It's extremely possible. Sometimes it's hard to snap out of a character, other times it's nothing at all. On Monday, I was doing a scene from A Doll's House and for a little while, I had no problem jumping from Kate to Norah. But I hit some different level and in order to de-Norah-fy, I had to turn away and reKate myself. -- The goal is to become, for me. But!
Kate says "There are also "as ifs" and substitutions, do you know about those?"
Adam says "Not in those terms."
Adam says "Explain?"
Kate says "Okay. Substitution first: When you're going through a script, you need to make sure you have relationships with the nouns. Sometimes, it's easier to substitute someone (or something) from your life into the character's. So, when you're talking about the character's children, you're visually seeing, say, your kitten."
Adam says "Okay, right."
Kate says "This makes it more "real"."
Kate says "'as if's give another layer and play on a psychological level. So, if you're in a scene where your character wants to get out of the room, you could play that scene "as if it is getting colder and colder in the room and it is warmer outside than it is in here"."
Fred says "So substitution is like a set of masks that exists inside yor own mind, for the OTHER characters."
Kate says "This will give you subtle gestures (rubbing your arm, whatever) that will play on a more subconscious level. The audience doesn't know what you're doing, but they /understand/."
Adam says "Ooh. Cool. Didn't know about that one."
Kate says "Or any other noun. They don't have to exist onstage to exist in the world of the play."
Kate says "It is cool, isn't it? :)"
Adam nods.
Fred says "No wonder actors go crazy on a regular basis..."
Is method acting to convince yourself or the audience?
Adam says "But these are techniques designed to convince yourself, but more importantly, to convince the audience."
Kate says "In convincing yourself, you should convince the audience."
Kate says "Unless you've just ... REALLY convinced yourself. And you're so delusional it's beyond help."
Adam says "I suspect, for gamers, convincing themselves is more important than convincing the other players."
Kate says "I think the audience is sort of the last step, actually."
Fred says "Well hold on..."
Kate says "So, gamers and actors alike, the self is more important. We're kind of self-involved people. ;P"
Kate says "Sup, Fred?"
Fred says "If the audience is convinced, and the audience is reacting, doesn't that help the actor?"
Adam says "Not the only important thing, Fred, but the most important."
Adam ohs.
Kate says "Depends. I mean. If the audience were the most important thing, where would our film actors be?"
Fred says "Oh, not most important."
Kate says "I actually block out the audience."
Kate says "They don't exist for me. After all, they just sort of ... break the 4th wall."
Fred says "Some actors do far better when they have an audience. But maybe that's not method."
Kate wouldn't say concretely one thing or another about acting or actors. Ever. We change our minds and our tactics ALL the time.
Adam says "Well, there is no audience in an RPG. Just actors and maybe a director. (Or, in some games, a lot of actor-directors.)"
Fred says "Adam... there's ALWAYS an audience in an RPG. It just happens to be the same people as the performers."
Adam says "They're audience in the way that other actors are audience."
Fred says "This is why I think immersion has to have its limits in an RPG."
Adam says "They need to pay attention to play their part."
Fred says "In order for there to be drama, there must be suffering."
Fred says "If I immerse too deeply, all there is is the suffering."
Kate says "An' how. And with a play or a film, you know when it'll be over."
Caution: Don't immerse too much
Kate says "So, yeah, I would caution players from immersing too much, honestly."
Fred says "Indeed, but since you're doing it for the audience, it's worth it."
Fred says "In an RPG though..."
Fred says "If it's all 'output' and no 'input'... if you're all actor and no audience, then the suffering is for naught."
Kate nods. "There's a weird line that I, honestly, have only recently found to allow me to walk both writer/director-actor for the RPG characters I play."
Adam says "Can you describe it?"
Fred says "Indeed, please."
Adam says "You play entirely online, right?"
Fred says "Really!"
Kate says "It's about the fuzziest gray line I've ever seen? ...You really have to take a step back - a dorky mental step away - and say, "I want this character to do X. And the outcome will be Y. And I will guide her to it, against her wishes or with them.""
Kate says "I have played tabletops once or twice, but yeah, mostly online."
Kate says "Brad's friends were too distract-able. :P"
Adam says "We call that (Fred will correct me if I'm wrong) Director Stance."
Kate says "That sounds right to me! Fred?"
Fred says "Yep."
Stance discussion
Fred says "Director stance."
Kate says "Director/writer stance often seems very similar to me, honestly."
Fred says "Author stance is when you say, 'Well, in THIS situation, the character would do THIS.""
Kate says "...that sounds actory, too."
Fred says "It's entirely based on LOCAL circumstance."
Fred says "Wait, no, that's Actor."
Fred mixes them up sometimes.
Kate laughs. "Director/author seem more overarching. Actor, I would venture to say, is more localized, as Fred said. It's more about the scene than the act.
Kate adds a "
Fred says "Right."
Fred says "SO what you seem to be saying, is that you counter your impulse to immerse, with director stance character control."
Fred says "Would that be accurate?"
Kate says "I have to."
Kate says "If I method-act my characters in RPGs, it's near constant irritation."
Fred says "It certainly sounds that wya."
Kate says "Though, there's certainly a little actor in what I do with her. I mean, I can't just guide her to certain things. I think on a scene-to-scene basis, there's more actor. In an "I want her to do <blah>" sense, there's more of a writer/director."
Kate says "It's the difference between a 1 year plan and a 10 year plan."
Shreyas says "the stance terms are badly flawed anyway. they mix scope and intent in a nonsensicla way."
Fred says "Shreyas is our resident cynic."
Good directors and writers should be actors
Kate says "I think the problem is more that all GOOD directors should be actors. All good writers should be actors. All good actors should be actors."
Fred says "Hehe."
Kate says "So, everyone's an actor. I guess."
Fred says "Pixar sends their animation directors to acting classes."
Kate says "No, really! I'm serious. Actors known how people talk. Writers can, sometimes, over-stiffen things. Directors should know how characters think and move and blahblahblah. ..see!"
Adam says "I have a theory about immersion. It involves intentionaly personality development. I think, the way we have different personality masks for work, for our friends, for our parents, for our SO's, we also can construct new personalities for ourselves for our characters. We pretend to be that character (fictional or the 'at-work me') for a while and over time it becomes /natural/ and not pretend anymore at all."
Shreyas says "When you say 'should be actors,' I take you to mean, 'share skills that actors also need to be good actors.' Is that right?"
Adam says "Harrison Ford to George Lucas: 'You can write these lines, George, but you can't say them!'"
Kate says "No. I mean that they should be actors at their core. They should know how to act."
Kate says "I mean, there are exceptions, sure, but. As my rule? I have found that good directors/writers are actors first (or at heart). And... yes. Adam. That makes sense."
Shreyas says "This is the sound of me -desperately- hoping that you are making a deliberately dramatic statement there that is not actually aligned with your beliefs, or that you are using the word "writer" in some way unknown to me.""
Fred chuckles
Kate says "I'm not saying you have to go stand on a stage and recite Shakespeare. It's more of a knowledge about how people operate, how they work, how they talk and how they /exist/, which is what actors do. They should be able to write naturally, just as an actor has to speak naturally. Am I being more clear?"
Shreyas says "Sure. That's much clearer."
Kate says "Awesome. :)"
Adam says "Certainly there are never-acted writers with those skills, but acting is one way to learn them."
Kate nods at Adam.
Adam says "George Lucas needs them."
Kate laughs. And yes.
Shreyas says "I just don't think that this is, um, a necessary skill of writers unless they are writing to accurately portray people."
Fred says "Several writers I respect, both scriptwriters and fiction, have said that you can't go far wrong spending time watching and listening to people, attentively."
Shreyas says "Which is a -kind- of writing but isn't like nearly universal."
Fred says "Well, a technical writer doesn't need it so much."
Kate says "I am really speaking on a screenplay/play basis, Shreyas. Or fiction that has dialogue or somesuch."
Fred says "But what other kind of writer ISN'T writing about people?"
Adam says "We're talking about people who write screenplays for actors..."
DaveC waves
Fred says "I think it applies to fiction, and a lot of nonfiction."
DaveC says "wow busy tonight"
Adam says "Yo, Dave. You remember Kate from AdamCon? She was the hot redhead."
Kate facepalms.
DaveC says "yes I believe so"
Kate says "Hi, Dave."
Fred laughs.
DaveC says "hi"
Adam says "Dave wouldn't remember you unless I put it in those terms. He barely remembers me."
Fred says "Wait, Kate..."
Fred says "You're LOCAL?"
Kate laughs at Adam. "I was, Fred. I just moved to L.A.
Shreyas says "Fred, I am making a distinction between -accurately- portraying people and portraying people. In the latter case, sure, you'd be well served to know the foundations of how people really act so you can stylise effectively, but it's not crucial."
Fred says "Damn."
Kate says "Is there a type of screenwriting or playwriting that would NOT want to accurately portray people?"
Adam says "Fred doesn't get to interact with hot redhead gamers often."
Shreyas says "Of course I'm also not talking about playwriting."
Kate ahs.
Shreyas says "I'm a fiction guy, see."
Kate says "Is there fiction, even, that wouldn't want to accurately portray people?"
Adam says "She was totally talking about writing for actors though. Context!"
Shreyas says "Yeah, sure."
Kate says "I mean. I would imagine that part of writing is to accurately portray your character. However he or she would talk/move/whatever."
Adam says "Not accidentally. On purpose, which requires the ability to do it accurately."
Kate says "It's part of maintaining character, which is part of acting. You can have someone wax poetic, but that's THAT character."
Shreyas says "This is going back a ways, but look at Makura no Soshi or any kind of mythology or any genre with strong conventions."
Shreyas says "Action movies."
Shreyas says "Romantic comedy."
Kate says "Not the best source for good writing/acting, in my opinion."
Shreyas says "These characters don't act like people."
Kate says "Which is why I ignore them. :)"
Shreyas says "Sure, there's a lot of shit in there."
Fred chuckles
Kate says "TV is death. Do not look at most TV for examples of good writing/acting either."
Shreyas says "I would like to believe that -something- in there is good even though I might not have encountered it."
Adam says "West Wing."
Adam says "Anyway. I want to talk more about immersion and gaming."
Shreyas says "Go ahead, Adam."
Fred says "Indeed!"
Kate said most! "Seinfeld is, perhaps, the best example of a good team, GREAT writing, etc. And yes! go forth. Sorry."
How do you immerse as a gamer?
Adam says "So, as a gamer, how do you immerse into a character? Do you use the same techniques you use in acting?"
Kate says "I do, but cautiously. As I said, if I just totally dive right in, it's horrifyingly frustrating."
Shreyas says "That's interesting, you have an idea why?"
Adam says "Frustrating in what way?"
Kate says "As a gamer, I would really focus more on using a directorial or writer angle, then let the immersion occur in smaller scenes. A scene like getting caught with your hand in a cookie jar is no big deal, I'd immerse that. But a scene where the character was locked in a cell about to be executed? There'd be some distance."
Kate says "Because characters are constantly running into walls, that's the nature of drama. With a script, as I said, you know when it ends. Without one? you could be hitting your head against the same brick for 3 years."
Adam says "I suspect that gamers and actors do what they do for very different reasons. =)"
Adam says "Also, games are designed to funnel a character to success. Better ones are, anyway."
Kate grins, "I game TO act. If that makes sense. Even given what I've just said, it's still a level of acting."
Adam says "You might be an unusual case. I dunno."
Adam says "I mean, more unusual than for the obvious reasons. ;)"
Kate says "It's also a little more fun to pull puppet strings sometimes. :P Getting your character to do something he or she might not WANT to do (and wouldn't, if you were immersed) is fun. Interesting."
Adam says "On the games you've played, how do game-rules stuff impact immersion for you?"
Kate says "I'm not entirely sure what you're asking... how do rules impact taking on the character? ... I don't think they have."
Fred says "Interesting!"
Adam says "You're on Firan, say, and trying to get into character."
Adam says "There are a lot of coded systems and occasionally you have to deal with one right in the middle of play."
Kate says "Right. Oh. Aha."
Adam says "Is it a tool that helps immersion? Does it ruin it? If so, how do you work around it?"
Adam says "I suppose it's sorta like the director suddenly putting a boom mic in your face, or turning on a giant 'snow' maker."
Fred laughs
Fred says "Just another thing to block out?"
Kate says "Well. To start, you're ... typing. That sort of distances yourself from the character. And the world. So when things like "GAME: @junk count etc." pop up, ...yeah, it's a little weird and, yeah, I do block it out (ha ha, I gagged it, honestly). If we have to stop and roll stuff, that... doesn't bother me. Sometimes it helps me make a choice she may not have made."
Fred says "So it helps push back towards the director stance?"
<OOC> Kate says, "Er, *I* may not have thought to make."
<OOC> Kate says, "It does push it toward director."
Kate says "And why am I talking OOC. Berhg."
Adam grins at your sudden use of... yeah
Fred laughs.
Fred contemplates joining Firan again.
Adam says "Masochist."
Kate says "I wanted to demonstrate the OOC vs. IC. Subtly."
Adam says "Some immersive role-players say they want the dice to get out of the way."
Fred says "I just want a MUSH where I can reliably expect to find scenes to play."
Kate says "Firan is it. :) ... I don't mind the dice."
Kate says "I look at them as a tool. Like the script."
Fred nods. "Makes sense."
Adam says "What if there's a @911 called and a staffer has to come down and adjudicate. I assume that blows immersion for you, at least for the moment?"
Kate says "I mean, my character had agility 1. I? do not have agility 1. I would not even know what to DO with agility 1 should I have it. Rolling helped; sometimes, she stumbled. Other times? she was fine. Sometimes? she knocked a house down."
Kate says "@911s totally blow it right out of the water. Everything grinds to a very screechy halt. And it's tough to get back in."
Kate says "I can think of one really large scene that had ... 10+ people all over the place and I had to call an @911 (or someone called it on me or something) and the momentum never came back."
Kate says "That's actually a good way to phrase it: the OOC commands can cause lost momentum."
Social Imperatives
Kate says "and social imps? If people don't like them? Screeeech!"
Adam explains.
Fred says "Okay, social imps???"
Adam says "Social imperatives are commands that roll dice against a PC's social attributes and skills and can 'force' another player to do something."
Fred says "Ouch."
Adam says "Examples are 'con,' 'persuade,' 'convince,' and so on."
Adam says "It's something you can do in Dogs in the Vineyard!"
Adam says "What do you mean ouch?"
Kate says "Yes and no. I mean. If you have a convincing character, I don't see why you couldn't imp someone."
Fred says "Here's why I 'ouch'"
Kate says "But people often drag their heels about it because it's not what the OOC player wants."
Fred says "I don't play Dogs with people I don't trust."
Fred says "I'd play something else first, figure out what kind of people they are."
Fred says "Can't do that with a MUSH."
Adam says "The problem is that some dork players come down and use it poorly. All the commands really do is tell the player a) play it out as if you were conned or deceived and b) if there's a great IC reason this shouldn't happen, call a staffer to adjudicate."
Fred says "It seems mightily abusable."
Adam says "The alternative is to have social attributes and skills mean zilch. We opted for the other, and it mostly works."
Adam says "Except for aforementioned problem players and occasional @911 calls."
Fred says "Okay, I've derailed enough..."
Kate says "I think they also have a lot of wiggle room for people to get defensive. If I don't know the player I'm imping (I rarely use them), I'd take time OOCly to chat with them. Which, also, can blow the immersion."
Adam wishes Thomas were here. He'd have lots of immersion questions.
Fred says "Pretend you're Thomas..."
Adam doesn't have nearly enough hair.
Any great method acting insights?
Adam says "Any great insights to share with us about method acting, Kate?"
Kate says "I think we covered most of it, at least in how it pertains to gaming. If there are no other questions about acting & rping... they're similar, they share a lot of qualities, but I wouldn't support entirely immersing one's self in a character. 90%/10%. It's a good rule of thumb, especially when you're trying to tell a story."
Kate says "And I think you have to remember that: you're telling a story."
Adam says "Depends on your play style. Sometimes you're trying to kill monsters and take their stuff and level up."
Adam says "But I wonder if those people ever really immerse."
Kate says "Well. .. I suppose. And. No. I wouldn't think they do."
Immersionist-helping techniques for game design?
Adam says "If you were gonna design a role-playing game, is there anything you would do to make it easier to get that immersive 'I am there' escapist experience that lots of players enjoy?"
Fred says "Ooh, good question."
DaveC agrees
Adam says "Alternatively, in the few tabletop experiences you've had, what (if anything) really hampered your ability to immerse that way?"
Kate says "I think the biggest problem I had was not being able to see a bigger picture. Even in method acting, which is also an immersion, you get a plot and an idea of where the world is going - a light at the end of the tunnel. ... OOC chatter does hamper (spawns are great, but, obviously, not something everyone has), entirely stopping the scene is death. But I don't know if there's a better way to do it, honestly, than an @911 or whatever. But whenever I break character (OOC, channels, @911, whatever), I break character. And then have to REfind her state of mind. So eliminating character breaks would be how to do that. But. I don't think that's possible, honestly."
DaveC says "did you play Dogs at AdamCon Kate?"
Adam says "I think MUSH RP offers many more distractions than tabletop games do."
Kate says "I. Think I walked past it? No. :)"
Adam says "Yet I also think many of those distractions are important because we're trying to build a community to build up that kind of trust that Fred needs to play certain kinds of scenes."
Adam says "Kate played in Roach."
Kate nods at Adam, "It does seem that way; it's hard to build community without a face. But? my friends are pretty easily broken out of character, so. ;) It depends on the group, I'd say."
DaveC says "ah I wanted an opinion on Dogs wrt immersion"
Adam says "We need to get Brad to get a copy of Dogs and run it for Kate and a couple other Californicators."
Fred says "Indeed."
Kate says "I'm sure he'd welcome it."
Adam says "I'm positive there are cool indie gamer folks near you, Kate. =)"
Kate says "Oh, I'm sure. Cali's weird."
Fred says "You need to meet Selene."
Fred says "Selene is hell on wheels playing Dogs."
Adam says "She's in Pittsburgh..."
Fred says "She WAS in LA."
Fred says "Well, close to LA anyways."
Adam says "Right. Started at CMU right after GenCon."
Fred says "Ah."
Shreyas says "ah, cmu"
Adam says "Any other questions for Kate?"
Kate stares intently.
Shreyas says "Hm."
Waiting/Tea and KKKKK
Shreyas says "I want to like point you at the stuff Jon Walton is doing with low-impact gaming and stuff."
Shreyas says "He is a clever dude."
Adam says "Yeah."
Adam is gonna code up Waiting/Tea here. =)
Kate googles.
Shreyas says "I was thinking about kazekami kyoko kills kublai khan.""
Fred says "That one's more interesting, to me at least."
Adam says "I haven't read KKKKK actually. I should."
Adam says "Waiting/Tea blew my mind, frankly."
Shreyas says "It is not hard to explain. But I don't remember it really."
Shreyas says "It's like, you have this initial situation - Kyoko has fought her way through the khan's guards and wives and stabbed the khan. He will die."
Shreyas says "The game is played like this, approximately... you say statements of mad-lib form"
Fred says "That's the START of play."
Shreyas says ""(Declaration!) (I am awesome.)" says kyoko"
Kate nods. No beating around the bush. :P
Kate says "Oh, that's very cool."
Shreyas says "Then khan says, "(Agreement!) (But obstacle?)""
Shreyas says "or "(Ha, disagreement)""
Shreyas says "I am oversimplifying and overcomplicating at the same time here"
Shreyas says "Each character only has two templates."
Shreyas says "Here we are: http://thou-and-one.blogspot.com/2006/01/kazekami-kyoko-kills-kublai-khan.html"
Shreyas says "Kublai: "Confirmation! But declaration! How open-ended question?""
Shreyas says "Kyoko: "Indeed, confirmation! Nevertheless, declaration! Rhetorical question?""
Kate says "...that. Would be ..weird? maybe hard to immerse into, actually."
Adam says "So that's setup for situation?"
Kate says "You're given snippets of script, but not the actual thing. How... weird. It would definitely be a challenge! I like it. :)"
Adam says "And you fill in the thingies?"
Shreyas says "Right. There are brackets in thise that the client ate.""
Adam mmms. Brackets.
Shreyas says "So the game consists of Kyoko explaining how she got into the khan's ger-tent to kill him, until he dies."
DaveC says "KKKKK broke my mind Adam"
DaveC says "Waiting/Tea only broke it a little further"
Fred says "I want to play KKKKK at some point."
Kate says "so it's all talk?"
Shreyas says "It's very talky. It was intentionally designed for text-based play."
Adam says "W/T is all talk, too. It's a little map of a temple. One player is a girl who is visiting the queen at the temple but has to wait to welcome in the next person at the gate before she can enter (it's only polite). The other player is a guy who was told by his master inside the temple to go get hot water for tea. Each player has a legend that lists things they can do in each room, including talking. They are limited to those actions."
Kate n.ods. To bring it back to my familiarity: good acting involves DOING something. Getting tea, packing a bag, whatever. DO something while you talk so your attention isn't on YOU. Talking. So... this would be weird. And potentially tear apart immersion entirely.
Adam says "It didn't ruin immersion for me when I played. It was oddly freeing."
Kate says "Well. I haven't played it, so take that with a grain of salt. :) But in my training, I have ALWAYS had something to DO. If you watch a real "actor's!" movie, take a look at them. They're generally always doing something; rarely do they sit and talk."
Shreyas says "Mhm."
Daniel whoas. "Conversation."
Method Acting and Verbs
Shreyas says "So would the emphasis on text, like, prevent you from choosing to gesticulate and so on?"
DaveC says "yeah Daniel :-)"
Kate says "Gesticulating is not actually completing a task or acting."
Kate says "Feeling/gesticulations are RESULTS of choices, not what you should actually play."
Lxndr says "Or at least, not on what you should focus play."
Kate says "Er, I used the word play differently than you are. :) I'll explain:"
Lxndr says "Ah, nevermind. Memories of acting classes returning."
Kate says "You cannot "play" (act) a feeling. You can act a /verb/ (your choices). So, if my intent was 'to anger you', I could then act that way and feel however that makes me feel - can't plan feelings."
Fred says "Interesting."
Fred says "Deciding on the feeling would be controlling the character rather than letting it control you."
Kate says "So if you have an actor telling you he's playing "sad", cry inside because you cannot play "sad". You CAN play "to share a secret" - and play it interestingly - and perhaps through sharing your secret, you become sad."
Kate says "Yep, Fred. Yep. Plus? it's boring. It's a boring choice."
Daniel says "What irc server/group does this indierpg stuff happen on?"
Shreyas says "magicstar.net"
Shreyas says "I suggest gryphon. or linuxguy. as they are the more stable servers"
Daniel just went with a random one for now.
Adam wonders if verbing things in a game system would help.
Daniel says "Oh, IRC... the memories."
Kate says "What do you mean, Adam?"
Kate says "These would be individual choices, generally, that the player makes. Or, at least, that's how they are for actor's."
Daniel says "Well, I'm entering the convo very late here, but I don't see a difference between 'verb' and 'action' -- it sounds like what Kate is saying is that it's easier/better to act... an action."
<OOC> Kate says, "er, actors."
Kate says "Stupid OOC! -- an action (something to do) is not a verb/intention, Daniel. I just switched topics rapidly."
Daniel says "Most RPGs already operate on the assumption that actions are being described/played out?"
Adam says "Designers often make the things in a game nouns, like Strength, Science, etc. What if we make them verbs, like Lift and Analyze? What does that change in the perception of a player?"
Daniel hmms. "Okay. Most indie RPGs are all about the intentions, so."
Kate says "Insofar as @sheet qualities, Adam? Like, if I had a 4 in lift?"
Adam says "Yeah."
Daniel reads back.
Adam says "I think that if you think of game system as interface, it helps a player know what he or she can do."
Kate says "Would it not, perhaps, fuddle long-time RPers who aren't used to it? I mean. I don't ..well, it could be interesting. Clearer. If you knew that "attention" meant "study" or something, "observe", whatever. I like it."
Shreyas says "You're suggesting treating it as interface-to-fiction there."
Kate says "That actually would be helpful."
Shreyas says "Which I am not sure is correct---to me it is an interface with the other players"
Adam says "It's interface with System, meaning the way people agree what happens in the fiction. Which is all about the other players."
Daniel scratches his head. "I am unclear how a character sheet of verbs is an improvement over a character sheet of, say, adjectives."
Kate says "Because verbs are /active!/"
Adam says "And 'Strength' doesn't tell you what you can /do/, only what you have."
Daniel is not clear how that helps. "I mean, it sounds like it should help, but I don't really see how. How is the player using the sheet that makes this more helpful?"
Kate says "Actors use verbs for their intentions (and we change intentions all the time throughout scenes) because they are active choices. You are -assaulting- someone or -amusing- him or whatever."
Adam says "As experienced gamers, we have learned to interpret nouns and adjectives into action-related things in the fiction."
Adam says "Waiting/Tea does this expertly. It tells you exactly what you can do."
Lxndr says "But is the character sheet having verbs better? The character sheet has traditionally been, effectively, an enumeration of the various props, the various things you can bring to the table. The player, again traditionally, is what brings the verbs to the table."
Kate says "I think it could potentially make it clearer."
Kate says "what props you have, what skills you bring. etc."
Adam says "Characters have normally been described with 'has' relationships. Conan HAS great muscle. Conan HAS swordsmanship skill. It takes a leap of thought to figure out what he can do with the things he has. If you give Conan a KILL ability and a DEFEND ability and a CLIMB ability, the player knows /what Conan should be doing/."
Daniel says "I think we need to clarify how we see the player using the sheet, and in what context."
Shreyas says "Yes."
Daniel says "Because there's a lot of different possibilities, and if we're assuming differently we are just talking past each other on this one."
Shreyas says "If what you're talking about is, like, you effectively push a button on the sheet and a thing happens mechanically and in the fiction, then yes I agree, verbs are a more direct way of looking at things."
Shreyas says "But that's like, an -exception- in designs."
Adam says "Kate, by the way, thank you very much. If you want to skip out on the game design stuff, we won't be upset. You're very welcome to stay and listen and contribute, though!"
Daniel says "Is the character sheet primarily a tool to tell the player what their character can do? Is it telling the player who their character is? How much filtering is going on between the character sheet and what gets expressed by the players on behalf of the character? Adam, you seem to be suggesting the latter should be reduced as much as possible."
Daniel says "But that can be accomplished in different ways depending on what the sheet is for."
Kate says "Nono, if you don't mind someone who doesn't design games maybe chirping in or listening, I'm interested."
Adam nods enthusiastically to Kate.
Kate says "Wahooty!"
Adam says "I think the character sheet generally /records/ the player's intentions in game terms. I think intention is better expressed as a verb."
Daniel says "Their intentions about what?"
Adam says "What they want their characters to do in the fiction."
Daniel says "Okay. What if they want their character to be strong? Is this just a misunderstanding on their part?"
Adam says "Better expressed as a verb, at least as far as those intentions map into the fiction, anyway. I admit that sometimes players just say, 'I want my character to be strong!'"
Adam hands Daniel a Coke.
Daniel chuckles.
Daniel says "Well, the question is are those players doing something important or are they just confused about how gameplay works. Kate has suggested that in acting, actors who say things like that may be a bit screwy (or actors who say things like "I'm being sad now", which seems similar.)"
Adam says "I don't know. I'd ask them, 'Why do you want to be strong? Is it because you want to use that strength for something? Is it because you associate strength with power and masculinity? *cough* Is it because you think being strong will give you a game advantage?'"
Daniel says "See, generalized nouns and adjectives have the advantage that they are, well, general. Many actions can come out of 'being strong' -- there's a lot of different things that could mean. If I have a Dogs character with a trait 'My suffering has made me strong', that has a wide applicability that cannot be covered by a set of verbs like 'lift heavy things' and 'climb cliffs' and 'overcome pain' etc."
Adam says "Or 'What would you do with all that strength?'"
Daniel nods. "But is that a question you ask in the game, or on the sheet?"
Daniel thinks it's a question you ask in the game, a lot of the time.
Adam says "I'm not necessarily suggesting a fixed list of verbs any more than Dogs suggests a fixed list of traits."
Adam says "What if the game says, 'Write down 10 verbs that suggest actions you want to be good at doing'?"
Adam says "Does that produce a more immersive game system? What Kate said would suggest that, yes, it would."
Daniel isn't clear how.
Daniel says "This is the same question I was asking earlier."
Kate says "Because it allows you to make doable choices, not ... abstract ones."
Adam isn't clear how, but takes Kate at face value when she says they teach method actors to verb rather than noun for better connection with a character.
Adam oohs at Kate and nods.
Kate says "If I said "I would be good at writing", that's pretty clear. I have a literate character. I like writing."
Kate says "If I said "reason 5", well. What does that DO? mean? etc."
Adam says "Writing being the gerundive form of 'write,' you mean. Writing is technically a noun..."
Kate says "Yes, sorry. :)"
Kate says "I was ahead of myself."
Daniel says "Okay, are we going on the model that the actor has no time to do internal characterization prior to play? Or just that if they need to reference their sheet, it would be easier if the sheet had that characterization laid out in its final form?"
Adam says "Well, if the sheet is to be useful, it should guide the player somehow, right?"
Daniel says "Because it seems to me that with a bit of time, Kate could figure out what Reason 5 meant to her character, and produce from that something like the statement she made."
Daniel says "But does it have to guide them while they are immersed?"
Adam says "Yes, but then Kate has to keep a mental list of what Reason 5 is useful for."
Daniel says "Why does she have to do that?"
Adam says "So she can use her stat."
Daniel hmms. "So we're talking about handling time once her character does something in the fiction that requires resolution?"
Daniel was still thinking about the characterization issue.
Adam says "Otherwise, whenever she takes an IC action that might require a point of contact with the rules, she has to do a search over all her traits to determine if any are applicable. That can blow immersion."
Daniel says "So if she has a specific trait for every action, that's easier."
Daniel says "But obviously implausible."
Shreyas says "Hm, Atlantis has its icon badges set up funny."
Daniel says "However, I see what you are saying. If the categories of actions are described generally, that is still easier than even more abstract nouns."
Kate says "Which, Adam, I do on Firan and it does take time away from BEING the character."
Kate says "I have to pause, check 'stats', and continue. Especially in the first 3 weeks or so, which are the toughest."
Daniel says "However, it's obviously impossible (to my mind) that when I go and perform an action for my character, that action can always have a direct, immediately-obvious mapping on my sheet."
Daniel says "I'm always going to have to think a little. Which doesn't mean reducing the thinking is worthless of course."
Adam says "Dogs in the Vineyard secretly verbs its resolution. Think of the four actions as: Just Talk, Do Physical Things, Fight, Shoot to Kill."
Adam says "Daniel, have you had a chance to play Waiting/Tea?"
Daniel says "Uh. I'm not interested in getting into whether or not that statement about Dogs makes any sense at all, so I'll just nod. But I want to register the suspicion that you made it up for rhetorical purposes, because Dogs resolution is obviously far more complex than what the four escalation/fallout categories represent."
Daniel hasn't, no. "I don't have a copy of Push so I've only read the sample."
Adam says "Yeah, ignore the Dogs comment. It was a mini-epiphany of mine."
Adam says "W/T is all verbs or verb-object pairs. 'Talk', 'Get Bucket', 'Drop Bucket', 'Go <direction>' etc."
Shreyas says "You should get a copy!"
Daniel is planning on it.
Shreyas says "Not that I have any stake in that or anything..."
Adam says "You only can do what is on the list for that room or on the 'anywhere' list."
Daniel says "I don't have a credit card, though, which makes online purchases a pain."
Daniel chuckles.
Daniel nods to Adam. "So that's an example of what I said above about how verb-ness can work in a severely restricted environment where only certain actions are possible?"
Daniel says "The more constrained the possible actions, the easier it is to produce a character sheet that can map one to one with all possible actions."
Adam says "Right."
Does System Get in the Way of Immersion?
Daniel says "Though it seems to me that a constrained environment can clash with immersion if not carefully constructed."
Kate says "Yup."
Daniel says "It's hard to immerse in a character when you occasionally do something and a giant beeping alarm goes off and someone says 'not allowed!'"
Shreyas says "Hm. That's counterintuitive to me."
Kate says "Part of immersing -or method- is that you can CHANGE your choices. Constantly."
Daniel says "Shreyas: which."
Daniel says "?"
Kate says "As long as the text supports it."
Daniel is thinking that a constrained environment could still allow limitless character choices, but they would simply have no mechanical reality.
Shreyas says "That constraint is immersion-unfriendly."
Daniel says "Which may undermine my hastily-made point there."
Shreyas says "My suspicion id that you are not using 'environment' the way I think you are."
Daniel hmms.
Adam says "It's purely anecdotal but I was able to immerse quickly and happily in my character in a 5-minute Waiting/Tea demo at GenCon amidst a sea of other demo people."
Daniel says "Well, for example take KKKKK -- or at least, the very brief description given up above, since that's all I've read about it."
Daniel says "What if I am fully immersed in a character and I decide that now I want to make (some different statement than that which is demanded)?"
Adam says "I did the first half of the scene without talking at all, actually. I didn't realize it till Jonathan got all bouncy about my facial expressions."
Shreyas says "I don't think that's environment the way I am using it, then. I see what you're saying, though."
Daniel hmms.
Shreyas says "Obviously, though, in my opinion you're sort of crazy if you're trying to immerse in 5k."
Shreyas says "More than sort of."
Daniel misses the Capes because he can subtract 12 from 20 and get 9.
Daniel nods.
Daniel says "Still, it does suggest that a flexible mechanical 'environment' is important if you want players to make choices as characters without thinking about 'is this an acceptable choice in this game I am playing?'"
Shreyas says "I'm like, er, still hanging on your use of 'environment' here."
Daniel is trying to think of another word. "Maybe you could describe what you think of as the environment?"
Daniel says "I guess I could just mean system. :P"
Shreyas says "Because it just doesn't compute -- environment suggests surrounding, whereas you're talking about a filter or screen"
Adam says "Yeah, don't say environment. Say system or setting or situation or some combination of those."
Shreyas says "Frankly, though, I think that if you're immersed in -the characters jonathan describes- then it shouldn't occur to you to talk differently."
Shreyas says "If you're immersed in some made-up person that didn't come from the text, then you're not really playing 5k anymore."
Daniel thinks that's a stretch.
Daniel says "I mean, I haven't read it, but are you suggesting that his characterization is so incredible that it will imbue the player with an understanding of the character so profound as to affect in what order they say things?"
Shreyas says "No, I'm suggesting that you accept system."
Daniel says "That requires that you think about it during play."
Shreyas says "The text says, 'talk like this', so you construct a character that talks like that."
Daniel says "Which is my only point."
Lxndr applauds System.
Daniel says "It doesn't just say 'talk like this' -- it says 'say these types of things in this order'?"
Shreyas says "Thinking about system is something we do continuously and it doesn't affect my immersion."
Shreyas says "That is a form of 'talk like this'."
Daniel says "An extremely specific one, yes."
Daniel says "I'm going off the premise that system interrupts immersion more or less depending on how intrusive it is."
Daniel says "This is not something I have an opinion about, but it seemed to be where the conversation was going."
Shreyas says "I think that is, uh, tautological."
Daniel didn't come up with it.
Shreyas says "Trivially, something is as disruptive as it is disruptive."
Daniel says "Okay, how about more or less depending on how much the player has to think about it in a way that is not how their character thinks about it?"
Daniel thinks 'system interrupts immersion more or less' might be even better. :P
Shreyas says "I dunno."
Shreyas says "I mean, I don't think that my Exalted characters think about mote economy and dice pools, but I do"
Daniel is not a big immersion-thinker in general.
Shreyas says "That doesn't interfere with my ability to run the intuitive character machine in my head."
Daniel says "Well, either you are a talented multi-tasker or (equally likely) we have no stable definition of immersion, making all these conversations a little frustrating."
Daniel says "Kate suggested earlier that having to stop in a scene and look up character abilities broke her out of whatever-state-it-was. At least, at first -- which suggests that it gets easier the more familiar you are with the system."
Shreyas says "Sure, that's why i said 'character machine' - it's not actually like self-explanatory but it suggests that i'm doing something != submerging self"
Daniel nods. "Well I assumed you were talking about something like immersion, since you brought it up in relation to whether system interferes with immersion. :)"
Daniel says "But really this conversation should probably just stop, since I'm not invested in defining immersion but for whatever reason seem to have taken over conversational initiative."
Shreyas says "Ha"
Adam says "Does anyone mind if I post a log of all this somewhere?"
Shreyas says "Go ahead, Adam."
Daniel doesn't mind.
Adam says "What's that RPG wiki? Randomwiki? What's the address?"
Lxndr says "random.average-bear.com"
Thomas says "I'm here!"
Adam says "Thomas, meet Kate -- who might be idle."
Kate says "I am not!"
Kate says "Bwhaa."
Adam says "Or just very quiet."
Kate says "Sometimes? it does happen."
Thomas says "I read that as 'Thomas, meet Kate -- who might die.' And I was very confused for a second."
Adam says "Everyone dies eventually."
Kate laughs. And.. eek.
Thomas says "Anyway, hello, Kate. It is nice to meet you. I am Thomas, Director of Special Projects."
Adam says "Thomas, feel free to toss questions at her and totally rehash everything we just said. We might find new perspectives. Meanwhile, I'll put up a log."
Daniel says "Adam: that just makes it even more confusing, with 'might.'"
Adam says "Thomas is our resident crazy person studying immersion."
Lxndr is Minister Without Portfolio
Kate waves. "I am Kate, Director of nothing. I'm just answering stuff on acting, so ask away!"
Thomas had a good question, but has forgotten it.
Thomas will try to remember the context that spawned said question.
Method Acting: Why do it?
Thomas says "So, method acting! Why do it? (Start of general.)"
Lxndr is sort of generally of the opinion that Capes isn't well-suited to text-chat, IRC or MU*
Thomas says "Alex, it is much harder to play without non-verbal communication channels."
Daniel says "Yeah, it's just the amount of code involved."
Daniel says "Tracking goals and sides and debt is obviously a lot easier when you have a visual model."
DaveC says "yeah"
Thomas says "Oh, that stuff doesn't really bother me these days. I can do all that in my head. My problem is that it's way harder to read people's reactions to my input."
DaveC says "the tools for Capes should be flash or something on the intarweb"
Kate says "Er, do you want me to answer in a bit? - I have no idea what you're talking about and don't want to interrupt. :)"
Daniel nods to Thomas. "I only got the game two days ago, so naturally I'm finding that stuff relatively overwhelming."
Thomas says "Kate, you can answer now or later. Your choice :)"
Thomas can follow up to about three conversations in a single channel.
DaveC says "THomas likes to multi-process :-)"
Kate grins.
Shreyas says "it the only way to fly"
Shreyas says "So what is it with mud clients and not like colouring usernames and stuff"
Kate says "Basically, method acting is immersing yourself in a character fully, however you can. If that means putting on 20 pounds, you put on twenty pouts. If that means taking up smoking, you take up smoking. Note: 'method' is different than 'The Method'. There was a splintering after Stanislavski died, Meisner/Adler and Lee Strasberg went different ways. ...kind of like evolution, if you will. They all hone on using certain tools (though those tools and terms differ from method to method) and all have to do with getting your head out of your head and taking on your character fully, to provide the most natural, organic performance possible."
Kate says "You can't highlight, Shreyas?"
Shreyas says "This text is remarkably difficult to read cos it is so monotonous."
Shreyas says "It's not that I can't. It's that the client doesn't do so -automatically-, which is a feature I would expect from any chat interface."
Daniel says "mIRC doesn't do so either..."
Thomas says "So, Kate, the reason to use method acting is to get the most believable performance you can?"
Daniel says "This isn't really a chat interface, anyways, it's just a glorified telnet client."
Thomas says "Daniel, that's because mIRC is the trash-heap of IRC clients :)"
Daniel would gag if things were automatically highlighted in irc or MU*, so shrugs. ;)
Kate says "I would hazard to say that any technique he or she uses, an actor is trying to get the most believable performance possible. There are lots of warring schools in this field. No one is better than the other, per se."
Kate says "But. yes."
Thomas says "How very odd. I'm pretty sure that color-coding is easier to differentiate." Daniel finds it garish in most cases.
Thomas says "Kate, I'm asking because I just don't know if people choose to use method acting techniques because they are effective, or because they are enjoyable to participate in, or some combination."
Kate says "Both. You can't be effective without enjoying it."
Kate says "And a good instructor will tell you to find what works for you. Everyone is different."
Thomas nods.
