Acting Out
All of your players are seated around you waiting for you to do something. They've just walked into a small inn, the only one in town. Ted, the leader of the group, looks at you and says, "My player walks up to the innkeeper and says hello."
All of your players are seated around you waiting for you to do something. They've just walked into a small inn, the only one in town. Ted, the leader of the group, looks at you and says, "My player walks up to the innkeeper and says hello."
It's at this point a lot of DM's do one of two things. You either respond with, "The innkeeper says hello and asks what he can do for you," or you deepen your voice to that of a surly old man and respond, "Why hello young sir, what can old Jethro do for you?"
What's the difference? It's the difference between storytelling and acting. You can have a good time with storytelling, but you'll have an unforgettable adventure with acting. A good acting DM can really bring a world and the NPCs in that world to life; even if it is to make your players loathe that evil cleric who just seems to slip through their fingers every time, and always seems to sneer at them while he does it. They also might never forget the clumsy blacksmith who is always waiting for them back in town.
The key here is to not only have detailed NPCs, but to avoid stereotypes. No one in real life fits easily into a box, and your NPCs shouldn't either. Avoid using comical accents and voices unless you can carry it on all the time, and it adds to who the character is. Also make sure it isn't a character who is going to detract from the action. An innkeeper with a lisp may be good for a brief moment of reprieve while in town, but the wisecracking squire who's throwing quips left and right while you fight a dragon is going to get old fast. As the old saying goes: not every dwarf needs to have a gruff Scottish accent.
The other thing I always say about this, as well as anything you do as a DM, is to take notes. Even if you are making up things on the spur of the moment, jot down what you are doing. I usually start by jotting down the NPC's name, then followed by any pertinent details. It looks as follows:
Mathew Draksen - Apprentice Fletcher, 16, In love with Penelope
This is a simple starting point. I then will jot down any other notes as I start to flesh out the NPC's voice and behavior. This may be done before hand, but usually happens once I start talking to the players. I simply jot these down as we go. I do this with a second line as follows:
Mathew Draksen - Apprentice Fletcher, 16, In love with Penelope
Says "Uh" a lot, Speaks in high cracking voice
These notes remind me of what the NPC sounds like so, later if the players meet up with him again, I remember what I did for that NPC. There is nothing more jarring than to hear one of your players ask your NPC, "What happened to your voice? You didn't sound like that before?"
The last notes I might jot down are anything the players do that might leave an impression on the NPC later. If Ted from our first example starts trying to push Mathew around I might make note of that:
Mathew Draksen - Apprentice Fletcher, 16, In love with Penelope
Says "Uh" a lot, Speaks in high cracking voice
Is intimidated by Ted, doesn't like him much
If this is acted out as well, simply by having the NPC not respond very well to Ted's questions but always answer another player's questions, you will begin to force the players to realize their actions have consequences. This also sets the players up for an easy good cop, bad cop if they need to do that. This is one thing my players always enjoy doing with a hostile NPC, and the first time your players go through it they're going to talk about it for long time afterwards.
The other key aspect of acting versus storytelling is to draw your players into the scheme as well. This means to not let them get away with simply answering old Jethro in our first example with, "My character tells him why we're here." Make your players respond in the first person. Refer to the other players as if they are in the same room as your NPC. Have old Jethro say, "I see there are five of you. What's your name lad? Speak up."
The other point here is to make your players roleplay. We are here to experience what it is like to be someone else. Force your players to think and act, and speak like the people they want to be.
This brings me to a key point of acting as a DM versus storytelling. These are social skills. A lot of games have skills that can be roleplayed represented as numbers. These include interrogation, intimidation, bluff, lying, etc. Almost every game has these types of skills and a lot of times a player will get in the habit of saying, "I use my bluff skill to get in."
This may be appropriate if they're chasing someone and you don't want to take the time to roleplay a situation, but making the player think on his feet will make him feel like he is right there.
The security guard the characters are trying to get by suddenly says "Where you going bub?"
Force the character to respond. I usually then roll their skill check in private, modifying it for how convincing I feel the player is being. A non-convincing "Look I need to get in there," is not going to sway the security guard. But an urgent, "There's a bomb about to go off and I'm the only one who can stop it," is definitely going to make an impact.
The main point here is to have a good time. Making your players think on their feet and become their characters will help them do that. A lot of DM's out there are going to say "Well, yeah, but I already do that." That's good. But are you actively creating situations in your adventures around this?
A good exercise for this is to create an adventure with a segment that has the player's characters trying to pretend to be something else. Think Luke Skywalker and Han Solo sneaking up to the prison level of the Death Star.
By actively planning these type of situations, you're creating moments of tension and giving your players a chance to be creative. To keep the tensions strong, force your players to respond to characters within a certain time frame. If a guard asks "What's going on here?" give the players the same amount of real time a guard would wait for an answer, "Well answer me!"
The first time you do this in a game will definitely shock your players and cause some weird answers to come out. But take these in stride. Your players will remember that first time you catch them off guard. They're going to prepare for it next time. They'll always be thinking of what their player is going to say next or what they might have to make up on the spur of the moment.
You'll always have players who don't want to be that fast talker, or quick thinker. These are the more strategic type characters. Engaging them with more thoughtful metaphysical conversations might be more interesting to them. Remember the key rule, you're a DM. You are a guide helping the players to explore the world. You are judge weighing and deciding what the consequences of the rules are. And most of all you are facilitator, helping the players realize their view of their characters. Don't force a player to do something they don't want to do. We're all here to have fun right? Acting is just a simple way to bring more fun to your game.
- Login to post comments
Nicely said. I prefer to run my campaigns JUST that way, and in fact, I'm beginning a new campaign just this week. Though the ideas aren't new, per se, this gives me a new way to think about them and, perhaps, to apply them. Thank you for a thought-provoking article; I'll be looking for more in the future (no pressure :-P ).
Auron
Thank you so much, amp21, for being omniscient and telling us how we will enjoy our games more. It is blatantly obvious that your style of play is best for everyone, and I should "force my players" (quoted) to adhere to that style. Wonderful.
I also really liked your example of a bluff. A bomb about to go off, and I am the only one who can stop it. What sheer brilliance. I can not think of any security guard - people paid to keep suspicious individuals out - who will not fall for that one.
And last but not least, good for you to not give a damn about what the players poured precious xp and resources into. If a guard walks up to an Eclipse Caste Solar with Wits 5 and asks what he is doing here, I should not at all give the player any more time to think than real time, even though his character can think about 10 times as fast as he can.
(Forgive the hostile tone, please, but this article contains a lot of bad advise, IMO.)
Belphanior
"This is a sarcastic sig."
Good article, amp. If the ST is up for it, acting out NPC's, even the low-ranking grunts of the story, can add depth to a story. Role-playing is about acting, essentially...otherwise, just play EverCrack. However, it's important to realize some players are better able to portray their characters and engage in conversation than others. Give these players the scenes with the PC's with personality, and hopefully the other players will follow their lead. Anyone in gaming can learn how to act, at least a little. Why else would you try to role-play? (Oh, yes, I forgot about Shadowrun. Paper dicks are also a reason to role-play)
I fit easily into most boxes. Although they need to be at least as large as a computer monitors average box. We did have a hard time closing it though...
Really Belph? I thougth it was quite good overall. Unless you're suggesting that someone might consider it the be-all and end all of advice.
How many times have we seen the plea "How can I get my players to roleplay more - or at all?" on the boards? This article introduces one of those ways competently, even if some of the examples are a little clumsy.
MArsden
Belph is right about one thing, though - pressuring your players to "think fast" will just make them angry in a lot of cases. And expecting a player to be able to come up with a line of B.S. when his character is an accomplished con artist and he isn't... well, it might happen - but not on the fly. DEFINITELY not as fast as the character "should" be able to come up with an answer.
The advice on acting out NPCs was pretty good. But putting the pressure on players to "HURRY UP AND ANSWER ME!" can lead to problems if it's done too often.
Hmmmm ... Thanks for this article amp21, and thanks for the opposing view Belphanior ( although I think your tone was a bit harsh ). You chaps have made me think.
Firstly, Let me say what I do. My style of DMing is largely descriptive, and I use Acting sparingly. I guess, this is because Acting takes more time and effort, and is difficult to do convincingly, avoiding sounding corny or steteotyping. I guess, that it depends on your Acting ability. I can do it a bit, and I do. Some people are very talented at producing different voices, accents, attitudes etc and they will enhance the game by using their skills. So do what is good for you, and don't sweat it.
On the other point of forcing players to think fast and act in character. Firstly I agree with Belphs and Starhawks point that a player probably cannot think as fast or as well as a very intelligent, very wise, or very experienced PC. So don't pressure them too much. Also, I think its good to try to develop your players, but bad to force them to change their habbits. I think the best way to develop players is to mix them in with better players so that they can learn by example, and to give gentle criticism after the game. The only time that I try to florce a change in a player is if they are seriously disruptive.
So. In conclusion, I think that Acting in RPGs is a good thing in principle, and you should do it at a level that works for you and your players.
=)
Jeez Belph, lighten up. I mean, do you realise how rude that post is? Were you shooting for sarcasm that just didn't come across or what?
And amp21, I like the article. i think you make alot of really good points. As a former game store employee and manager I have played under alot of GMs in alot of different game systems and the GMs who were interactive in this manner were the best games I played.
Well, while I won't be as hard on amp21 as belphanior was, I have to agree that while there is some truth to what amp21 is trying to say many things will make your "acting out" unfair to some players.
Imagine having a player with a lisp or stuttering problems. You can't have them penalized for that.
While I encourage my players to speak in character and not say "My character says..." but rather "I walk up to the barkeep and say: ..." I will not pressure my players, especially those who are shy or socially ill-at-ease but have made characters who are suave, glibmasters.
Sure I'll expect them to answer promptly, but not as fast as in real life. Otherwise, you take away the need for the skills to exist in terms of game mechanics.
If what and especially how the character responds to NPCs is too important in determining the outcome of interactions, then why bother buying social skills and charisma (or personnality depending on the game).
What about when the GM bluff's? What if you're a really bad liar but have to play an NPC who's 5 times a better liar than most politicians?
What if you are a calm and quiet person but have to intimidate another PC or an NPC? Will you have to scream and hit the table with your fist?
Do you ask your bards to sing, play the lyre or recite poetry? While it's fun at first, it gets on everyone's nerves after a while (especially if said bard can't hold a note or a tune).
While I totally agree that the best style is an interactive one, because it makes for a more "immersive" experience, one should not get carried aways and turn the gaming table into a talent show.
"This brings me to a key point of acting as a DM versus storytelling. These are social skills. A lot of games have skills that can be roleplayed represented as numbers. These include interrogation, intimidation, bluff, lying, etc. Almost every game has these types of skills and a lot of times a player will get in the habit of saying, "I use my bluff skill to get in.""
There is a damn good reason social skills are represented by a dice roll. Not everybody is Mr. Smooth, or Ms. Charming. Not everybody can be super-charisma guy, but their Characters ARE. The player might be an average guy, but the character has a Cha of 18. Now modifying on the content of what is said is one thing, but modifying on acting ability is crap. Not everybody is a good actor and those people are penalized.
Answer me this, do you make the players demonstrate their strength or constitution prior to letting them do things based on strength or constitution? Suddenly in that context the ability score is just fine, but not for the abilities that impact social interactions.
"You'll always have players who don't want to be that fast talker, or quick thinker."
Wrong. It isn't that they don't want to be fast talkers or quick thinkers it is that some of them aren't. They just aren't gifted with the gift of gab or the ability to figure out a riddle in 10 seconds. However, if their character has a Cha 18 or an Int 18 their character probably can. Hence the dice.
"There is a damn good reason social skills are represented by a dice roll. Not everybody is Mr. Smooth, or Ms. Charming. Not everybody can be super-charisma guy, but their Characters ARE. The player might be an average guy, but the character has a Cha of 18. Now modifying on the content of what is said is one thing, but modifying on acting ability is crap. Not everybody is a good actor and those people are penalized."
I agree with the sentiment here, though I think there's value in at least making the effort even if you're going to roll the dice to determine how effective the effort is. One of the players in our 7th Sea game recently managed to sway an angry mob with an incredible Oratory roll. His success was based on the fact that he rolled well, but we were sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for him to reveal who the "true enemy" was. By taking a crack at even a portion of the oratory himself, it was a lot more fun.
We have a standing rule in our game that if you use an accent consistently for your character, you get certain benefits (such as being able to assume that you can understand people from different countries even if they speak a different language). The accent doesn't have to be GOOD, just consistent. Same thing applies here - make the effort to roleplay the fast talk or whatever, but it should only benefit you, not be a penalty.
^^^^^^^
That's a really excellent point. While skill numbers represent the character's skill level rather than the player's, a little effort on the player's part is not too much to ask.
First of all, I'd like to thank amp21 for taking the trouble of writing this article; it does touch upon an important (if not central) aspect of RPGs. I can see merit in most of the viewpoints listed above although I don't always agree with the manner in which they are stated.
RPGs are indeed games which are mostly played for fun. Now, considering this discussion involves the role of 'acting' in role-playing, we can exclude from the discussion any playing styles that are completely pen, paper, and dice based. This is not a prejudice, but a discussion of acting in game doesn't really apply to anyone who isn't interested in that sort of game-play.
Of the gamers who are interested in acting their characters there are also many different varieties and preferred playing styles. I personally am very interested in in-depth character development and worlds with (hopefully) colorful NPCs. In my games I have varied my approach from situation to situation, placing players under time-pressure at times when I knew (from previous experience with the same players) that they could handle it. Also, I rarely introduce such 'real-time' elements into game-play without consulting the entire rpg group first. I liked amp's mention of the impact his PCs had on NPCs (and their future interaction with each other). This is something I've always tried to build into my games (down to the smallest encounters).
As to social skills...this has always been a tricky area for me. While I agree that there is a big (and important) distinction between a player and his/her character, sometimes rolling for social abilities leads to other kinds of problems. Let's take amp's example of trying to get past a bouncer...if the player succeeds at a bluff roll, what exactly /does/ he say to get inside? This may seem like a minor point, but if you are running a game where every action has its consequences you suddenly have an unexplained hole in the narrative. Did the PC trick the bouncer? Flat out lie to him? Intimidate, bribe, cajole him? Did he appeal to his compassion or his generous spirit? What happens if the PC runs into the bouncer again (or worse, has to get past him again)? If the PC was glib enough to befriend the bouncer, this might make successive entry much easier, but if the PC hoodwinked him, he'd be more on his guard.
I prefer it if players /can/ actually come up with a good bluff (or intimidation angle, or whatever) to use. If they can't and prefer to roll the ability score, that's fine by me too but I often appreciate it if they can give me any idea of what they're saying (even if not the specifics), e.g. are they initimidating them, or tricking them, or bribing them? If they really can't work out an angle (after the roll succeeds) to explain what happens it often ends up becoming a group activity with all the players trying to come up with a plausible explanation for why the bouncer (in this example) should let the PC(s) through. It's not that I particularly encourage this (or put the poor player under needless pressure to come up with an answer) but it often ends up with a mutually satisfying explanation that we can all live with (and that often provides fodder for sucessive encounters).
To summarize, I think that while social abilities are, indeed, like other ability scores and should be rolled, they present a different problem than abilities such as strength or dexterity. When a social ability roll succeeds, it doesn't alway lead to a clear resolution of the RP situation. This is the case even for an ability such as strength (warning: bad example follows)...say a character has to pull a more-or-less featureless door out of a wall...where does he/she grab on to? How does he/she exert his/her strength? While the roll determines success or failure, the players and the GM still need to fill in the blanks regarding the precise details of how the situation is resolved. This is almost always the case for social abilities.
(Adopting Standard BBC 'I Kann Speek Gud' English) Being a classically trained actor, one always attempts to act out his interactions with NPCs. When one is DM, one is able to perform to his heart's content. A lot of fun.
Here's a gift. Game with a blind person at least once. Carve the numbers on some dice deeper, get one of those raised letter tape dispensers, and forget about anonymous flatulence (It's worse than carrying a sign). I fondly recall my gaming sessions with a blind couple. Wonderful people, wonderful actors. My Bubble-Flower, if you're at home reading this, tell your mom and dad hi and that we miss them very much! Okay, okay... say hi to Mr. Goopy too.
........
Mr. Goopy?
I'm not even gonna touch that one.
You should see how players react to having to answer real-time in a horror game. God, does it ever scare the poor buggers. Just wanted to say that. :p
"It's the difference between storytelling and acting. You can have a good time with storytelling, but you'll have an unforgettable adventure with acting."
In other words, "Acting is (always) more fun than storytelling."
Excuse me, but whose game is this?
Come to my games and play a few hours before you criticize it, amp, and I'll give you the same consideration.