Very interesting phrase used there ‘What does the camera see?’ To me this suggests something like my favourite form of meta-gaming where I might have a character say or do something and then follow it immediately by describing - out of character - some facial expression or gesture that betrays any discrepancy between superficial words and actions and actual motive or intent. In some cases, I might even be so explicit as to say ‘What my character just said is a lie’. I think these kinds of things are essential to give fellow players a full sense of the context of the sene so that they can, in turn, make ‘meta choices’ to inform how it plays out.
Yes, I'm so glad you spotted that!! So that's something that comes from the PbtA world, specifically it's a big GMing tactic from Jason Cordova (Gauntlet, The Between, Brindlewood Bay). I've found that the half-dozen times I've used it in the sentence to like, try to help my players along, they just LIGHT UP and understand immediately.
And you nailed it with my exact favorite example of a disingenuous approach, or dual motives. It's a great way of like, getting a player to nail down how they feel. I once said "What does the camera see?" and the player was like "Oh, oh, oh! When my character storms out, she looks SO tough, but she just pauses outside the door for a half second and you can see on her face that look of like, 'Oh shit, I didn't handle that well.'"
Your example from play is exactly what I’m talking about. I can see that, from the point of view of a certain ‘method’ school of playing characters, that the meta-technique of intruding an ‘external viewpoint’ is deleterious. Personally, I’ve always shared David Mamet’s skepticism of ‘the method’. It’s all very well having a deep feel for a character and their internal emotional state, but this doesn’t matter at all in the context of a performance (and RPGs are a performing medium), where what matters is what the audience (I.e. the table) can infer, experience and enjoy.
Haha, I share Mamet's skepticism of the Method. I'm sure it has fans in the TTRPG world, but until my players get a chance to study with Lee Strasberg for a few years, I need something a little more accessible!
You reminded me, I want to write something about Follow: A New Fellowship and its use of distinguishing between Player opinion and Character opinion in its resolution mechanic. I found it actually MORE immersive to acknowledge that your character and you might not be on the same page!
There was also a fellow on one of the (now largely defunct) old Facebook RPG group-finding and online play pages who, infamously, replied to any questions about playing characters with the less than useful mantra ‘Get in character. Stay in character. That’s all you need to know.’
Did ‘the method’ ever recover after Godfather II? I suppose Daniel Day Lewis is famously an avowed disciple. I’ve had a post gestating for the last few months about the distinctions between player and character and ‘self insertion’ in RPGs (very broadly defined). But I put it on hold when it began to dawn on me that all characters are always some form of self-insert in the sense that you either ‘agree’ with them or don’t but, in either case, it’s still just your preferences that are being expressed in a funhouse mirror sort of way.
I mean, the Method really lives on in any style of action -- or gaming! -- which says that the best way to be "in character" is to immerse yourself in an interior landscape and reflect outwardly what you find there. The trouble is that neither theater or TTRPGs are interior activities.
I think what you're describing as "self-insertion" or "through-the-funhouse-mirror" is fun! I love that sorta self-discovery, it's one of my favorite parts of play. I just happen to think those discoveries don't happen when we simply go ruminating and looking inside ourselves amidst a sorta mind-palace, but rather when we are forced to express ourselves, to make choices, to get EXTERIOR, and then once it's out there we can go "Oh wow, holy shit, will you look at that."
Very interesting phrase used there ‘What does the camera see?’ To me this suggests something like my favourite form of meta-gaming where I might have a character say or do something and then follow it immediately by describing - out of character - some facial expression or gesture that betrays any discrepancy between superficial words and actions and actual motive or intent. In some cases, I might even be so explicit as to say ‘What my character just said is a lie’. I think these kinds of things are essential to give fellow players a full sense of the context of the sene so that they can, in turn, make ‘meta choices’ to inform how it plays out.
Yes, I'm so glad you spotted that!! So that's something that comes from the PbtA world, specifically it's a big GMing tactic from Jason Cordova (Gauntlet, The Between, Brindlewood Bay). I've found that the half-dozen times I've used it in the sentence to like, try to help my players along, they just LIGHT UP and understand immediately.
And you nailed it with my exact favorite example of a disingenuous approach, or dual motives. It's a great way of like, getting a player to nail down how they feel. I once said "What does the camera see?" and the player was like "Oh, oh, oh! When my character storms out, she looks SO tough, but she just pauses outside the door for a half second and you can see on her face that look of like, 'Oh shit, I didn't handle that well.'"
Your example from play is exactly what I’m talking about. I can see that, from the point of view of a certain ‘method’ school of playing characters, that the meta-technique of intruding an ‘external viewpoint’ is deleterious. Personally, I’ve always shared David Mamet’s skepticism of ‘the method’. It’s all very well having a deep feel for a character and their internal emotional state, but this doesn’t matter at all in the context of a performance (and RPGs are a performing medium), where what matters is what the audience (I.e. the table) can infer, experience and enjoy.
Haha, I share Mamet's skepticism of the Method. I'm sure it has fans in the TTRPG world, but until my players get a chance to study with Lee Strasberg for a few years, I need something a little more accessible!
You reminded me, I want to write something about Follow: A New Fellowship and its use of distinguishing between Player opinion and Character opinion in its resolution mechanic. I found it actually MORE immersive to acknowledge that your character and you might not be on the same page!
There was also a fellow on one of the (now largely defunct) old Facebook RPG group-finding and online play pages who, infamously, replied to any questions about playing characters with the less than useful mantra ‘Get in character. Stay in character. That’s all you need to know.’
Did ‘the method’ ever recover after Godfather II? I suppose Daniel Day Lewis is famously an avowed disciple. I’ve had a post gestating for the last few months about the distinctions between player and character and ‘self insertion’ in RPGs (very broadly defined). But I put it on hold when it began to dawn on me that all characters are always some form of self-insert in the sense that you either ‘agree’ with them or don’t but, in either case, it’s still just your preferences that are being expressed in a funhouse mirror sort of way.
I mean, the Method really lives on in any style of action -- or gaming! -- which says that the best way to be "in character" is to immerse yourself in an interior landscape and reflect outwardly what you find there. The trouble is that neither theater or TTRPGs are interior activities.
I think what you're describing as "self-insertion" or "through-the-funhouse-mirror" is fun! I love that sorta self-discovery, it's one of my favorite parts of play. I just happen to think those discoveries don't happen when we simply go ruminating and looking inside ourselves amidst a sorta mind-palace, but rather when we are forced to express ourselves, to make choices, to get EXTERIOR, and then once it's out there we can go "Oh wow, holy shit, will you look at that."