Acting as Gamist Play

[Alan]

Hi all,

Recently I've read two threads, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10481" >Regarding the nature of roleplaying and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10685" >Immersive Story Essay.

They've triggered several ideas, but here's the one I want to put up for discussion in this thread:

Some roleplayers emphasize the actual act of acting - performing in character - as an epitome by which roleplaying should be judged.  Until recently, I've always assumed this is a niche of simulationist style play.  But is it possible that it's actually a kind of gamism?

Consider that gamism values a player's willingness to step up, take a risk, and perform under pressure.  Isn't acting a kind of risk-taking performance?  When a group values this kind of performance-intensive play above other elements, aren't they also prioritizing Step On Up?

[Gordon C. Landis]

Yes, it can be.  The key is (like so many things GNS), what really is the prioritized point of play?  Is the fact that you acted "better" (either compared to some theoretical gauge or literally just better than the other players) actually what people demonstrate primary appreciation for?  NOT as a means to serve a premise-address or the joy of the Dream?  Then you've got Gamism with "acting ability" as a key part of the Step On Up criteria.  I think folks have pointed to some Amber play as tending in this direction, and I think Christopher Kubasik posted a while back about realizing some of his play used to fall into this category.

It is tricky, as just appreciatin' the good acting going down doesn't mean play is prioritizing it - that is, you can be appreciatin' skill (at acting or whatever) without having play be primarily about that.  But if it is - Gamism.

Gordon

[contracycle]

When I was a wee nipper, my mother tried to interest me in a childrens "theatre games" group.  There is definitley a mode in which acting can have all the elements we associate with Gamism.  But they need not - I think there are other modes that correspond more to S and N.  I would be wary saying that acting is inherently Gmaist tho, for otherwise anything we do for anyone else is gamism.  If I make you a coffee, have I not garnered some gratitude and thus social esteem?  Sure, but maybe I just made you coffee 'cos I like you.

[Seth L. Blumberg]

I run a LARP that could be accurately characterized (at least from my point of view, and that of my favorite players) as Gamist where the Step On Up is related to acting ability. So, yeah, it can happen. No question.

(Oh, and hi, everyone! I'm back after 14 months. Didja miss me? On second thought, don't answer that question.)

[Matt Wilson]

Consider that gamism values a player's willingness to step up, take a risk, and perform under pressure. Isn't acting a kind of risk-taking performance? When a group values this kind of performance-intensive play above other elements, aren't they also prioritizing Step On Up?

As long as the game provided new acting challenges every time, I can see it. Just "acting" wouldn't be a challenge in and of itself, so you as GM would have to create challenges for the player.

[contracycle]

As long as the game provided new acting challenges every time, I can see it. Just "acting" wouldn't be a challenge in and of itself, so you as GM would have to create challenges for the player.

Yes thats interesting.  Conceivably you could have a character whose schtick was being the human chameleon; then, the players portrayal of their character acting in character would be quite a complex acting challenge.

[Alan]

Actually, I think just staying and talking in character all the time is a constant challenge.  It is for me anyway.

[pete_darby]

to my mind, it would depend on what folks were grooving on: acting as a tool for better simulation, or competing to see who was better at acting?

[Mike Holmes]

Depends not only on what the reward is for, but what you can do with the reward. If the Roleplaying bonus EXPs are then used to power up, then I think you're definitely seeing Gamist design. If they're used, instead say, for the player to create setting elements, then I think you've got a more sim supporting system potentially.

But there are a couple of designs in which the reward is just "winning." These are obviously Gamist rewards for roleplaying. The two that come most immediately to mind are Pantheon (one of the modes of play at least) and Primeval. In the latter, basically it's a storytelling pagent with the winner being the one who did best. Each player takes turns telling their version of the events as though they were the character telling it after the fact, and the one that does the best job gets his version entered into the annals of history (basically only the best version of the story is retold later). That's a direct rewarding of the roleplaying ability of the player, and nothing else. Very strong gamism, especially as each player tries to raise the bar when taking their turn.

Mike