Characters

[sobrique]

Is it actually possible to roleplay a character, that doesn't in some way reflect an aspect of our own persona?

Comments

[girl-working.livejournal.com]

Interesting question. I've never managed to play one that isn't part of me... I wouldn't be able to play them realistically if I didn't have some frame of reference to base their personality on...

[mister-jack.livejournal.com]

Roleplaying characters are an aspect of your persona; the two are not seperable. So the answer is a trivial 'no'.

If you mean is it possible to play characters who are radically different from the personality you usually present; then yes, it is. But much harder. And there are always limits; I could never, for example, play a great public speaker because I don't have skill at public speaking.

[absintheskiss.livejournal.com]

I believe it's called acting. However roleplaying is more instinctive and on the fly, so we can take from ourselves rather than outside sources. It can be done, but is more difficult and can be very uncomfortable.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Actors get a script, though. Arguably, their characters are a synthesis of actor and writer - plus a little spin from the director.

Roleplaying involves decision after decision. As the person making those choices is the player, the character's persona always tends to warp a little as a consequence, I think...

[velvet-nothing.livejournal.com]

I don't believe it's possible to roleplay with much realism at all. None of it would happen in any real emotional sense. If a character's best friend died in the 'real' world, they would probably react very badly, cry a great deal and not function well for weeks. How often do roleplay characters cry? In roleplay, most of the emotional responses also forward the plot, and to sit around moping is not good for this, which I think takes away greatly from the depth of it all and from the way any real person would behave. If roleplay was done in a 24-style real-time kind of way, then I think I'd enjoy it more.

Sorry; that didn't answer the original question. Just thought I'd say.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Real time roleplay sounds quite a bit like 'Live Action Roleplay'. And yes, you do get the 'emotional charge' happening.

[girl-working.livejournal.com]

I did have a rather intense RP bit when Cara, my SINergy char, at an IC party, got upset... I spent a good 30minutes-hour crying/almost crying in a corner 'cause she/I was IC upset... So, yes, the real emotions do happen...

And if Jeager in Mael died? I'd first be upset, then pissed off and basically suicidal...

In a LARP, as the players control the plot (even if the plot is to go kill the Orc King, the players can still sit on the floor and sing peace songs if they want...) then they can mope and cry if they want... Just most characters in linears are larger than life Heroes who Get On With It - as opposed to fest characters who are just slightly more special average people who are a lot more realistic IMO... If that makes sense?

[elrohana.livejournal.com]

I'm a bit of a newbie with roleplaying, having started at a very late age about 6 years ago (when I say I'm 41, you can see HOW late!), however, in my first table-top D&D campaign, when my Paladin received her mount, I was absolutely incapacitated for a good 15 minutes as I was totally IC AND OC overwhelmed by the emotion of the scene. When he later died and I thought I had lost him for good (I hadn't he was raised for me by a very high level cleric I had done a favour for) I was absolutely broken and really wasn't much use either IC or OC for the rest of that session. So that intensity of emotion IS possible, at least in my experience. And in LARP I have been absolutely terrified to the point of my real-life blood pressure going through the roof and breaking out in a sweat, shaking, etc etc. And yet nothing was going to happen to the REAL me, it was all pretend.....

But back to the original subject, I have not yet succeeded in playing a chat either tabletop or live who didnt reflect at least ONE aspect of my real self. You might want to think about that in relation to Cleopatra, Mr Sobrique *wink*

[myki.livejournal.com]

I have in my past played what could best be described as "the evillest man on the planet" I wasn't delving into my dark persona to play him - every thing I did resulted in carefully considering what I could say and making it the most repulsive option. I would say that chap didn't reflect an aspect of my own persona. Unless you call carefully considering everything I say as a persona - be as it was internal and not really part of the character itself - I hardly think it's reflects anything.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

It's hard to do as our beliefs form and measure our actions. An actor gets a script and direction to aid them in portraying someone different from ourselves but roleplayers generally do not have these crutches. As the plot twists and turns we draw out reactions that are formed within us. More often than not these are healthy expressions of the inner drives within us, yet we may be unaware of these internal drives and their modes of expression. Our psyche is seeking to display and play through a range of thoughts and desires that our conscious mind may choose to reject. These internal drives may find a peaceful outlet through roleplaying.

[huwjones.livejournal.com]

Well, there's always the utterly faceless bland character, but that's more avoiding the issue than answering it.
As roleplaying is not multiple choice, the options you see available generally have to come from you. This might mean you can never escape the limitations of your self. As mentioned further up, actors have a script and rehearsal time.
The problem is how you would tell if a character is not an aspect of yourself, I feel. And wether playing it in a meaningful way might force your persona to broaden itself to accept the character as an aspect.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Well, that's kind of the thing I've been wondering - if it _is_ based on you, then ... well, is expressing that aspect good or bad :)

[dj-rws.livejournal.com]

I've often wondered about this and the conclusion I've come to is: NO.

Since you are entirely in control of how/what your character is/does then your character will always be a part of you in either a big or small way. To totally disconnect yourself and "be" a character who has experiences which you lack is impossible, you will merely project what you think they are/should be like onto themselves from your own experiences and perspectives.

I've resigned myself to knowingly being a part of my characters in some way or another. Now I tend to think "what character do I want to play?", make some stats and a brief background and go from there letting the character develop as part of the setting/character's experience in the game world because the more I think about the character then the more it's likely to turn out like me and I'll end up playing the same thing in every system.

[malal.livejournal.com]

It will always reflect a *possible* aspect of your persona. As you grow up, there are the selfish violent & nasty parts animal instinct parts of yourself that you put to one side & never touch again, abandoning them due to the morals you decide to adopt, or how society conditions you. But you can always call on them to help play the heartless psychopath to really spice up a game.

In effect, as people talk about who you can choose who you want to be in life, and how you can control your own destiny, the paths left un-chosen cease to be who you are, but can be called forth as part of roleplay.

One thing that I've strongly noticed, the further removed from your real personality the part your playing is, the harder it is to keep it up for any length of time. My fest characters tend to be close to the real me for that very reason, and I bet I'm not alone in that. The way out there radical characters from the edge of my personality only come out in table top, or afternoon LARP games. And even then, I haven't played a radically different character for a while, just haven't felt the drive to do it.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, the think I'm thinking, is that I think 'more thorn' than I did beforehand.

So the thing that's niggling me a bit, is: by expressing part of your persona, is this a positive or a negative thing - do you bring to life things that are best left hidden, or do they serve to release pressures 'safely'?

[xarrion.livejournal.com]

it's a mixed bag, in that regard. The more time you spend 'in character' - or at least, thinking about what your character would do - the more comfortable you become in that way of thinking.

It's human nature to adapt to your environment (where you can't do the opposite), and the fact that the environment isn't exactly real doesn't change that fact.

If your character is a thief, and spends his time sizing up potential targets, security flaws, etc, then after a while it becomes a learned response, and your *subconscious* starts doing it for you.

As you can't exactly control what your subconscious does, you've changed your *actual* personality to be more predisposed to thievery - even if consciously you would never do it.

On a less specific, but more relevant, note - if you character is more of an extrovert, and your roleplay involves forcing yourself to be friendlier, louder, more lecherous, it will in time become second nature.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I was reading an interview about Nathan Fillion's new film Waitress where he was asked this question

" How much do you relate to your Han Solo-type characters?

Somebody said once that you can never act and be another person; you’re only acting facets of yourself. I think there’s a lot of truth in that. I look at a role, and I think it basically boils it down to, “What would I do, had I experienced those things, now faced with this? How would I react? I know what I would say, but how would it make me feel?” I lean very heavily on that. So I relate to those characters—and any character I play—in as much as how I would personally deal having had those experiences. "

http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=15670 for the rest of interview.

[syntheticbrain.livejournal.com]

I think that when you define a character (as much as one can) you are bounded dy certain limitations - mostly internal (the unimaginable is unimaginable!) but often external (odious characters can derail games rather than add roleplaying opportunities).

To some extent when an actor plays a role these are actually the writers limitations (which may have been stretched deliberately by source material/research).

I've led a particularly sheltered life (for which I am extremely grateful) and so my characters tend on the whole to be genial bookworms (generally with a side order of heroic stupidity/tendency to chivalric martyrdom).

However just because you are limited by experiences, that doesn't stop you deliberately extending your horizons.

I'd say you are limited by experience of similar personalities rather than having that facet yourself - having met enough of x personality type, you can play one - without necessarily having any of the qualities associated with personality type x.

kwtxomiodMRrQmowgi

[(Anonymous)]

jkCPtx hi great site thx http://peace.com

bpTgcxzEadmxzkPaGm

[(Anonymous)]

Best Site good looking http://groups.google.com/group/free-tmobile-ringtones/web/t-mobile-ringtones t mobile ringtones opygkq