In Character, Out of Character
Feb. 10th, 2004 04:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueA discussion has started on one of the Forums I read, for the SINergy LARP.
About the distinction between IC and OC (In Character and Out of Character).
I started roleplaying relatively recently. In the last year or so of Uni. It started off, as such things tend to, as pretty fluffy. Parties _mostly_ got along, there was no major party angst, and everyone was nice to each other.
Gradually, I've found that characters have evolved. My paladin character has a personality clash with the mind controlling sorceror. The rogue poisions the paladin, because he's an 'obstacle' to his ends. It's always important to draw the distinction between In and Out of character.
Sometimes this is hard. The first time someone in the party betrayed one of my characters, I was hurt, personally. And then I realised, that the game is escapeism. So having a Lawful good Zealot character was always going to end up with a clash with someone evil. It wasn't done by the person in question to spite _me personally_.
I've since learned, that it's actually rather fun to play 'morally ambiguous' characters. You know, the ones who don't just fight for right and good "just because", but who fight for pay, greed and lust.
With a little metagaming, it's possible to tie a party together 'well enough' to have a game. In the above example, the paladin might have been ordered to take along the mage because of his specialist knowledge. And having given his word, he then wouldn't automatically be butchering the evil mage.
Both, of course, would have a certain amount of tension, witticism, and conniving, but carefully. The paladin not wanting to break his word, the mage not wanting to push too far.
If everyone is on the same page, and it's expected from the group, then it works well. You still have room for the absolute moral characters, but by the same token, he's probably not going to just trust people because they're PCs.
This becomes even more so in a LARP, because there's no need to metagame to keep the party together. If character A, despises archetype B, then chances are there will be a clash of characters. And if well roleplayed, is very entertaining. But if, and only if both players understand this.
If you've come from the land of fluff, and suddenly find someone who hates you for being a paladin/solo/bounty hunter/thief/nun or whatever it can feel like a personal attack.
It's not. (well, not generally). Talk to them OC afterwards. Or ideally beforehand. Chances are, they're rather nice people. Most Roleplayers I've met, are actually mature, sensible and nice. (This is leaving aside those to whom roleplay is about numbers, and skills, and being the hardest). I think this is because there's a certain level of maturity (for the want of a better word) that's required in order to roleplay effectively. Maybe the word is "emotional development". (which is two words, but let's not be pedantic).
About the distinction between IC and OC (In Character and Out of Character).
I started roleplaying relatively recently. In the last year or so of Uni. It started off, as such things tend to, as pretty fluffy. Parties _mostly_ got along, there was no major party angst, and everyone was nice to each other.
Gradually, I've found that characters have evolved. My paladin character has a personality clash with the mind controlling sorceror. The rogue poisions the paladin, because he's an 'obstacle' to his ends. It's always important to draw the distinction between In and Out of character.
Sometimes this is hard. The first time someone in the party betrayed one of my characters, I was hurt, personally. And then I realised, that the game is escapeism. So having a Lawful good Zealot character was always going to end up with a clash with someone evil. It wasn't done by the person in question to spite _me personally_.
I've since learned, that it's actually rather fun to play 'morally ambiguous' characters. You know, the ones who don't just fight for right and good "just because", but who fight for pay, greed and lust.
With a little metagaming, it's possible to tie a party together 'well enough' to have a game. In the above example, the paladin might have been ordered to take along the mage because of his specialist knowledge. And having given his word, he then wouldn't automatically be butchering the evil mage.
Both, of course, would have a certain amount of tension, witticism, and conniving, but carefully. The paladin not wanting to break his word, the mage not wanting to push too far.
If everyone is on the same page, and it's expected from the group, then it works well. You still have room for the absolute moral characters, but by the same token, he's probably not going to just trust people because they're PCs.
This becomes even more so in a LARP, because there's no need to metagame to keep the party together. If character A, despises archetype B, then chances are there will be a clash of characters. And if well roleplayed, is very entertaining. But if, and only if both players understand this.
If you've come from the land of fluff, and suddenly find someone who hates you for being a paladin/solo/bounty hunter/thief/nun or whatever it can feel like a personal attack.
It's not. (well, not generally). Talk to them OC afterwards. Or ideally beforehand. Chances are, they're rather nice people. Most Roleplayers I've met, are actually mature, sensible and nice. (This is leaving aside those to whom roleplay is about numbers, and skills, and being the hardest). I think this is because there's a certain level of maturity (for the want of a better word) that's required in order to roleplay effectively. Maybe the word is "emotional development". (which is two words, but let's not be pedantic).
