Typecasting or Character Players.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Typecasting or Character players.  Yet another limit on the possibilities of roleplaying


When reading PC integrity something struck me.

In acting there's a phenomenom called "character actor." This means the actor tends to play the same kind of character regardless of the role. Also, the actor who plays the part effects the role.

The Devil's Own was a pet project of Brad Pitt for a while, but casting Harrison Ford changed the movie. In the scene when the IRA was in the house threatening Ford's character's family. In the script, he was supposed to cower. Ford fought back. Why? Because based on the type of characters Ford plays, no would believe he would just cower when his family was in danger.

This sort of thing has happened at my game table. I usually play a jokey type of chartacter. I had tried stretching myself to do other type but it never worked out. Everyone excepted me to play a jokey character, so a serious charcter didn't work. Also, I found myself slipping back into the same type of character role because it was comfortable.

Anyone have thoughts or comments?

[Mike Holmes]

A couple of things. First, a nitpick:

In acting there's a phenomenom called "character actor." This means the actor tends to play the same kind of character regardless of the role. Also, the actor who plays the part effects the role.

Character Actors, as I understand it are actors who are selected for their quality of being able to act a particular part well. This may just be how the actor is, or not, but they play that part over and over. Guys like Powers Booth, and Michael Ironside are my favorite examples of actors who end up in the same roll over and over because of this. Yes, they are typecast.

This is as opposed to stars who play themselves, however, like Ford. Or much worse, Kevin Costner. These are guys who have a lot of charisma (actually I don't understand the Costner case at all), and, hence, the director lets the character become like the actor. Actually he doesn't have a choice, really; casting such an actor means changing a role to that actor, in essence.

Subtle difference. Character Actors are selected to fit the role, "Personality" Actors are selected for draw, and the role changes to fit.

I have no problem with character actors. And if I like the personality of a "personality" actor, and it happens to fit the story, thats fine with me. But often personalities are cast in ways that just don't make any sense, and that bugs the heck out of me. Because you can just taste how the role has changed from the screenplay to adjust to the untalented actor's personality. Ick.

This sort of thing has happened at my game table. I usually play a jokey type of chartacter. I had tried stretching myself to do other type but it never worked out. Everyone excepted me to play a jokey character, so a serious charcter didn't work. Also, I found myself slipping back into the same type of character role because it was comfortable.

Have you tried resisting this actively? I mean, it's sure to be uphill. But definitely not as hard as fighting Hollywood. In your own case, acting outside of your own personality just takes a bit of concentration, IMO. Which I personally find very worthwhile.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

First, a nitpick:

In acting there's a phenomenom called "character actor." This means the actor tends to play the same kind of character regardless of the role. Also, the actor who plays the part effects the role.

Character Actors, as I understand it are actors who are selected for their quality of being able to act a particular part well. This may just be how the actor is, or not, but they play that part over and over. Guys like Powers Booth, and Michael Ironside are my favorite examples of actors who end up in the same roll over and over because of this. Yes, they are typecast.

While I agree that Powers Booth and Michael Ironside are excellent in the rolls they play, I didn't think that was quite exactly what a character actor was. I'd have named Dustin Hoffman (compare Hero, Tootsie, Rain Man, Dick Tracy), Robert Hardy (compare All Creatures Great and Small (Sigfriend Farnham), Winston Churchill:  The Wilderness Years (Winston Churchhill), Zany Adventures of Robin Hood (Richard Lionheart)), Tom Baker (compare Doctor Who, Chronicles of Narnia The Silver Chair (Puddleglum), Hound of the Baskervilles (Holmes))--actors who can so disappear into a roll that you don't see the actor at all. Now, maybe people who play the same character repeatedly are also character actors, and this is more a question of range, but I do think that the phrase "character actor" means someone who becomes the character rather than making the character become him.

I haven't had that experience; but I have, I think, seen it. I try to help my players develop different characters, and most of them can do it, although some don't seem to want that. My characters usually have in common that they are all serious about what they do; other than that, they're so completely different that I get different scores on personality tests when I take them in character.

--M. J. Young

[efindel]

Just to throw in yet another definition, my understanding of "character actor" is someone who is a good actor, but isn't a leading man/leading lady "type".  I.e., someone who isn't considered good-looking or "charismatic" enough to be a "star", but is nonetheless a good actor.

Well, with all these different definitions, I decided to hit Google and see what I could find.  WordNet gives this definition:

character actor:  an actor who specializes in playing supporting roles.

--Travis

[Windthin]

Hmmmm... okay, first a few things.  A Personality Actor is basically somebody as described before; they play themselves.  Raw charisma carries the day.  You can drop Clint Eastwood and John Wayne both into this category (and this is why, incidentally, John Wayne as Ghengis Khan didn't go over so well).  A character actor is an actor who specializes in playing eccentric or unusual people rather than unusual roles (that's straight from the Oxford, incidentally).  A good example would indeed be Dustin Hoffman; if you want to delve into the past a bit more, your character actors are the faces you recognize often in movies, in surprising and diverse roles.  Typecasting is what tends to happen to people like Christopher Walken, who definitely has a very difficult time getting away from playing the bad guy.  No wonder, he does it so well.  These three categories can overlap.  Take it from a movie buff.

What we're really talking about here is blend of self-typecasting and personality acting.  It happens.  I've had players who, no matter what, always return to what they are.  This is irregardless of whether what they are has some innate charisma or not; they really cannot play beyond who they are, and attempts to do so fail miserably.  Sometimes this is not bad.  You know your leaders, your followers... your warriors, your casters, your cut-ups.  There are degrees of this.  Some can play a diversity of characters, but certain traits always show through.  Now, when people expect you to play something, that's outside type-casting, and that's a very possible occurence too, as Mr. Spencer shows.  Can this be limiting?  It really can.  Somebody else might call it knowing your limitations, though I personally urge players to explore new sides of themselves in roleplay.  ::shrugs::  I think it is a factor to at least be aware of.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I am disappointed that this thread has degenerated into mostly nitpicky debate over the definition of character actor.

[Tim Alexander]

Hey Jack,

Maybe a restatement of the question at hand that you're looking to address will help folks get back on track?

-Tim

[Mike Holmes]

Wasn't my intent to derail the thread. In any case, both Windthin and I have posted on the main topic at hand. If you could respond to that, Jack, perhaps you could get it back on track.

Or did Windy and I miss the point entirely?

Mike

[John Kim]

This sort of thing has happened at my game table. I usually play a jokey type of chartacter. I had tried stretching myself to do other type but it never worked out. Everyone excepted me to play a jokey character, so a serious charcter didn't work. Also, I found myself slipping back into the same type of character role because it was comfortable.

Anyone have thoughts or comments?

Well, as far as gaming experiences, my impression is that casting of players to PCs is probably the most important factor in the success of a campaign.  

One of my most interesting experience with casting was in a Call of Cthulhu variant set in Victorian London.  At one point, two of us brought in new PCs.  I was playing an established NPC (Ariel Hawksquill), while Jim was playing a new character which he designed (Major Philip Rook).  After playing for about three sessions, we felt that things weren't really working out.  At that point, the two of us switched PCs -- I took over Rook (keeping his background and design) and Jim took over Hawksquill.  The interesting thing was that after the switch, both of us did wonderfully.  Jim was terrific at Hawksquill magical thinking, and I did great at Rook's secret agent-like trickiness.  

It could be that we were trying to stretch our abilities in our new PCs.  This might in part be that we were reacting against our old PCs.  I had played a brutal policeman who the other PCs left because of his violence, so I took over a mystical old lady as my new PC.  Jim had played a crazy old professor with delusions of magical power who died when he trusted in his powers, and he took on a competant secret agent of sorts.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Wasn't my intent to derail the thread. In any case, both Windthin and I have posted on the main topic at hand. If you could respond to that, Jack, perhaps you could get it back on track.

Or did Windy and I miss the point entirely?

No harm, no foul. I just wanted to nip the talk about character actors or whatever in the bud since it's no help here.

At this point I'm wool-gathering on the topic until something solidifies (or not) out of the topic.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

To give a bit more direction here, I think Windthin hits it that this is a phenomenom to be aware of. I started this thread after reading the bit by Paul about creating a character and then finding out he just couldn't get it to work in actual play. I see this sort of thing happen all the time. Hell, I've done it. I've created character concepts which wound up being nothing like the reems of background I had written. This is not quite the same as the GM's plot going awry because you have to expect that at least a little unless you're expecting hardcore illusionism. What I'm talking about here is theroleplay equivelent of attempting one of those fancy gourmet recipies, it turning out wrong, and then whipping up some hot dogs and mac & cheese for dinner instead.

Maybe that analogy is a little tighter than I thought. Skills need to be developed to be able to turn out a gourmet meal. How about we focus on what skills and how to develop them to help break out of typecasting.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Jack,

Just to clarify, are you purely concerned with the individual's skill at portraying a character in this thread or is the ability of the whole group (and perhaps the game system) to assist the individual player in that regard a viable topic?

-Chris

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Hey, Chris

I don't think it's really possible to separate the two too much. In actual play, it will be the player and the group working together. I supposes for the moment we can focus on the indivdual.

[C. Edwards]

Well, like Vincent said over in the Adventures in Improvised System thread, very often when you try to play a character outside your normal personality (range) the attempt comes off as 2-dimensional. The other players can feel the deficit of character and through actual play they often help subtley bend the character back into a more 3-dimensional representation. That leaves you back at "jokey". Or with a whole new character entirely sometimes, like John has pointed out.

Beyond actually studying the behaviors and mannerisms of someone you wish to model your character on and putting them to good use in play, I'm not sure what would be of immediate help in such a situation.

-Chris

[John Kim]

What I'm talking about here is the roleplay equivelent of attempting one of those fancy gourmet recipies, it turning out wrong, and then whipping up some hot dogs and mac & cheese for dinner instead.

Maybe that analogy is a little tighter than I thought. Skills need to be developed to be able to turn out a gourmet meal. How about we focus on what skills and how to develop them to help break out of typecasting.

Hmm.  Maybe we are talking about different things here?  Your analogy suggests something that is both undesired and inferior.  An analogy for what I was talking about would be a chef who always cooks gourmet Szechuan chinese food.  She may try branching out to say French cooking, but it comes out wrong and she whips up some reliably-delicious kung pao chicken instead.  

I would tend to say that if you find it more enjoyable to break out of typecasting, then you should probably start with small steps: i.e. a character who is similar but has one important difference.  Then make your next PC have a few more important differences.  On the other hand, you might enjoy sticking with a type.  In Commedia Dell'Arte, for example, actors would make a career out of a single character in endlessly varied improvised stories.