Method acting is for those who don’t want to act.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but that’s all it is. In my opinion, acting is an art and can be approached in various ways. There is no correct way, and immersing yourself into a character is a perfectly valid way that has some advantages.
I’m reading a book called “Social Intelligence” at the moment. I’m reading about the abillity that some people have to put themselves in other person’s position and feel what the other person is feeling. Experiments with people in social situations show that this is not just another cognitive ability, empathy uses different parts of the brain to intellectual problem-solving.
For example, when some people see someone who is sad it makes them feel sad too. They can then understand the other person’s position much more clearly, because they are feeling it themselves. But they don’t just understand it, their brain behaves almost exactly like it would if there was a reason for them to be sad themselves. This explains why a lot of people feel like crying in sad movies, they have empathised with a character in the movie who is sad and therefore their body has the biological reaction of sadness, which is crying.
When a method actor wants to convey sadness, they will actually make themselves sad. Preferably, they will do it by imagining their character as a real person. So it’s just like they were watching a movie of their character being sad in their head, and that makes the actor sad. The result is that their whole body becomes sad, not just their mind. Their tears are real tears, their face spasms, their throat constricts, etc. They convey all the physical symptoms of sadness.
Many people in an audience are very good at spotting the actual physical symptoms of emotion, as opposed to “faking it” (which is what I assume you mean by really acting). So the method actor appears more believable to many people in the audience, even if the audience doesn’t consciously realise this, which heightens many people’s enjoyment of the character and the story.
This is also true in larp. Another advantage of method acting in larp is that you get really feel what your character feels, not just pretend to. Some people enjoy this, even if their character is feeling unpleasant emotions. I do, and I know lots of other people who do too.
And that’s why I believe it’s okay for some players to use something similar to method acting in larp.
Jared, was that more constructive?
yep i think so
the challenge now is, can that standard be maintained?
Jared
And just faking it is for those who dont want to get the job.
PUUULEEEEEEEASSSSSSE!!! 
If you dont get Method Acting dont beat us up over it, some people cant do it, the same way some people cant walk and chew gum.
which all goes to make the rich tapestry we call life.
Skirmish is run by a committee. It may well be lost, but it works and is a lot of fun to play (which, IMHO, is one very good way to measure a larp).[/quote]
I agree with Wulfen 100%. Been there done that, that is why we don’t do LRP by committee in Hamilton any more. As for Skirmish, just wait. Also many of the people on this thread seem to think that fun is not important in LRP, hence the many protests to the Dogma 2007 which basicaly says Live Role Play is fun.
[quote=“Carl”]
If you dont get Method Acting dont beat us up over it.[/quote]
Oh I get it, I really get it. I’ve just moved on. It does not take long to see the limitations and disadvantages of Strasborg Method, they are many and they are great.For some reason though, those who make money by teaching it don’t seem to mention the limitations that often. Method I find tends to be very limiting in the scheme of acting and applying them the a Live Role Play tends to place the same constrictions upon Live Role Play. This is easily seen if you look at the modules that are actually played by the Dogma 99 crowd. Me I prefer the Michael Greene style of acting with a touch of French school. Personal taste and all.
Back to the real point of this thread, the Dogma 2007 manifesto placed as the first entry. Dogma 2007 allows people to play Dogma 99 games. Dogma 99 does not allow people to play Dogma 2007 games.
I am therefore asking people if they would prefer the Dogma 2007 manifesto. If you want your name at the bottom of the manifesto, let me know.
Your criticism of method acting is completely vague. I went into great details of the advantages of it’s psychological realism, and you’ve answered by saying it’s “very limiting” without describing what you think those limits are. If you have a specific criticism of method acting (and immersive roleplaying, by implication) then I’d be interested to hear it, but so far you haven’t given your actual reasons.
I would say that method acting is not as useful for many categories of drama. It is not as useful for pantomime, for parody, basically for anything that tends towards melodrama and over-acting. It is probably not as useful for broadway musicals and other large stage productions, because of the requirement for projection to distant audiences. But it is very useful for psychological realism, which includes the vast majority of screen work. While only some modern actors are labelled as “hardcore” method actors, most of them appear to use it to some degree. Gone are the days of black and white film where overacting was the norm, we live in an era where psychological realism in screen drama dominates.
Most larp is more like screen drama than big stage drama, because you’re face-to-face with the fellow players. There’s nothing wrong with overacting or melodrama in a larp that suits it, but likewise there’s nothing wrong with a method acting approach in a larp that has a vision of psychological realism.
Back your manifesto. As Craig has pointed out, your dogma allows pretty much any larp. In that sense, it’s not a dogma.
But to explore the idea that it allow Dogme99 larps: would your dogma allow a larp where having fun was not the purpose, such as Europa? Point 9 seems to say not. Would it allow for a larp where player characters are not allowed to have significant events in their backstory? Point 1 would say not.
As for “many of the people on this thread seem to think that fun is not important in LRP” - you’re really reading the situation wrong. Many people on this thread are demanding the right for variety in larp.
We all enjoy having fun in some larps, but some of us would also enjoy some larps where fun was not the point.
Which of these is your dogma is saying?
- this is the type of larp I like
- all larp should be like this
Nobody has a problem with number 1.
Lots of people will have a problem with number 2, and they wouldn’t want Dogma99 to be presented that way either.
I must admit I don’t have the time or space to do a five page essay on the flaws or faults of method acting. There is plenty of that out in the literature. If youwant we can set a up a new thread or I can send the novel direct to your email.
I see you already know a few of the limitations.
Agreed. and it is a good thing that it makes up a reasonable part of the current film work else a hell of lot of method actors would be out of work.
True, but it is a manifesto.
People find fun in lots of different ways. Some people are happiest when they are miserable, go figure.
Point 1 says people are allowed a back history. It does not say that they have to have one.
Dogma 2007 says variety good. Dogma 99 says this is the only way.
It says
3) Live Role Play is a game, there are lot of ways to play it, have fun, just don’t let the organisers ruin it for you by their own egos.
Skirmish is run by a committee. It may well be lost, but it works and is a lot of fun to play (which, IMHO, is one very good way to measure a larp).[/quote]
I agree with Wulfen 100%. Been there done that, that is why we don’t do LRP by committee in Hamilton any more. As for Skirmish, just wait. Also many of the people on this thread seem to think that fun is not important in LRP, hence the many protests to the Dogma 2007 which basicaly says Live Role Play is fun.
[/quote]
What am I supposed to wait for ? Skirmish has been going since 1995, run by a committee. Just because it didn’t work for you does not mean that others can’t make it succeed.
And it appears this poistion goes to crux of the discussion on this thread. Namely:
-
“Doesn’t work for me = can’t work for anyone” (e.g. method acting, larp by committee)
-
“Does work for me = anyone who disagrees is plain wrong” (e.g. larp must be fun).
Alista, is this accurate, or have I misread the general thrust of your posts ?
You’re debasing the meaning of the word fun.
Let’s talk about education, which is one of the things I believe a larp can be as well or instead of entertaining/fun. Why should I go to university? Is it because it will be fun, or because it will be educational? Maybe I will enjoy the learning process, or maybe I won’t, but the purpose is to come out with skills and knowledge I didn’t have before. That’s the meaning of education. Whether I have fun in the process is irrelevant. Even if I’m hating it, I might continue because I want the skills and knowledge. I would argue that the same could apply to a larp.
Let’s take an example of a larp that is intended to be educational, and not necessarily fun. Let’s say it’s a larp that educates people about what it’s like to be homeless, by having them play homeless people on the street. Many of the participants are not going to enjoy it in any sense, but they are going to find it educational. The larp is intended to be educational, and probably won’t be fun for anyone. Is this larp okay with you and your manifesto, or not?
Let’s say I’m running a larp about people with amnesia. I instruct the players not to create back histories, because nobody is allowed a back history in this larp. Is this okay with you and your manifesto, or not?
having amnesia is a back history. See such films as “Conspiracy Theory” or “Long Kiss Good Night” or Total Recall. Having total amnesia at the start of a book or film is a common plot as well. Or part way through it i.e. “Pay check”.
Get back on other points when I’m not teaching this class.
[quote=“Mike Curtis”]
What am I supposed to wait for ? Skirmish has been going since 1995, run by a committee. [/quote]
I stand corrected. My aplogies, from looking at the rules I had the impression that Skirmish was a new game. I might have to turn up and play, see what I can learn. When is the next Skirmish?
Back to teaching.
I take that to mean that you’d be happy for a larp organiser to run a game where none of the players have a briefing apart from “you don’t know how you got here and don’t remember anything”.
How about a larp where the organiser says “nothing unusual has ever happened to your characters, and nothing in their backstory relates to the events of this larp”?
I’m interested to hear your answer to the fun question.
I think it’s useless to describe a larp as fun or not fun, because everyone has their own ideas about what is fun. You might not have fun at a particular larp, but someone else might. One person’s recipe for fun is another person’s recipe for boredom. Some people probably found the new “Starsky and Hutch” movie fun to watch, but I didn’t.
Also, some people aren’t looking for fun at all from a particular larp. They might be looking for creative inspiration, or education, or mind expansion, or any number of other types of fulfilment. I think some larps can cater for those requirements, and others can try to help their players have fun. There’s room for everything.
Sounds like my job
[quote=“Alista”][quote=“Mike Curtis”]
What am I supposed to wait for ? Skirmish has been going since 1995, run by a committee. [/quote]
I stand corrected. My aplogies, from looking at the rules I had the impression that Skirmish was a new game. I might have to turn up and play, see what I can learn. When is the next Skirmish?
Back to teaching.[/quote]
Accepted.
As it happens, there is a committee meeting tonight so I should be able to nail down a date. Looking forward to larping with you again soon - hope to make it back down for a Quest module in a couple of months.
Skimish has recently morphed into version 2.x which has introduced persistent characters and a common storyline. It’s challenging to develop, especially with some characters getting quite powerful (balance is a constant consideration). While we will solicit and listen to feedback/ideas, we are most certainly not a democracy 
In terms of the manifesto, there is a fairly good match with most points (as one would expect in a D&D-inspired larp).
About the only point where we differ is point 1. All PCs start out as “Level 1” adventurers at the Keep on the Borderlands. They basically hook in to the main plot and we don’t attempt to bring in character backgrounds.
And maybe point 9 - the organisers want to have a good time too, so we probably only do stuff that we’re going to find fun.
[quote=“Mike Curtis”]
About the only point where we differ is point 1. All PCs start out as “Level 1” adventurers at the Keep on the Borderlands. They basically hook in to the main plot and we don’t attempt to bring in character backgrounds.
And maybe point 9 - the organisers want to have a good time too, so we probably only do stuff that we’re going to find fun.[/quote]
Again point 1 says a character is allowed a back history. But that doesn’t mean that they have to have a back history. Most of our characters have a minimal back history at best. But they can have more if they want it.
Point 9 is basically saying the fun of the organisers should not be at the exoense of the players.
[quote=“Alista”][quote=“Mike Curtis”]
About the only point where we differ is point 1. All PCs start out as “Level 1” adventurers at the Keep on the Borderlands. They basically hook in to the main plot and we don’t attempt to bring in character backgrounds.
And maybe point 9 - the organisers want to have a good time too, so we probably only do stuff that we’re going to find fun.[/quote]
Again point 1 says a character is allowed a back history. But that doesn’t mean that they have to have a back history. Most of our characters have a minimal back history at best. But they can have more if they want it.[/quote]
True. I suppose the test is whether the GMs need to moderate a given backstory.
For example, if a PC joined Skirmish and said "I am 's sibling we’d probably say, “yeah, whatever”. But if tried to create a backstory that gave them some extra benefits (like being a King or Queen etc), we’d probably have to moderate it so that it fits the game (e.g. they have been deposed and are now commoners so have resorted to adventuring).
Except when we kill the whole party ! 
Because fun is fundamentally subjective, it may be easier to talk about the concept of “value”. For example, in the final Mordavia game I was in a scene where there were 2 PCs (including my character) and 3 NPCs. It was a Faerie Court and the other PC literally had her neck on the chopping block for about 15 minutes. She was about to be beheaded and my character wanted to keep her alive. It was very intense. Only one character (an NPC) looked to be having a good time (a courtier who thought it was great fun).
It was powerful larping, but I wouldn’t call it “fun”. Instead, I’d say it was valuable. It was a new, highly intense larping experience. I don’t think the other PC (played by Alexcia) would describe it as fun either.
If the manifesto spoke of “value” rather than “fun”, it might increase the flexibility for the game writers. Sometimes, the consequences of PC behaviour result in non-fun, but highly valuable, larping opportunities.
Mike
What you say the end is very true. It may be of value and not fun at the time. This has happened many times in Quest.
HOWEVER
At the end of the LARP players should have had fun or realise that what they achieved was really cool and therefore derive pleasure (fun) from that fact.
Cool
Jared
Why? Why is larp different to say a movie in this regard?
what / where do you teach?
what / where do you teach?[/quote]
Bridging Physics at the University of Waikato