originally posted at https://canmom.tumblr.com/post/767269...
everything is roleplaying, except roleplaying, which is improv. it’s all so obvious when you put it that way…
like. you know. viewing life by way of performance of this or that category is not exactly a new sentiment. authors have been getting into that one since long before i was born. I’ve read my share of allegorical stories about masks.
but anyway. last night i went to a munch for the first time, which of you’re not familiar is bdsm speak for a social gathering. i had a good time, thanks! kink people are, it turns out, mostly a species of nerd, and if there’s a type of person i naturally get on with, it’s nerdy trans women. sometimes hot women are very excited to talk about bicycles, and i for one am glad for this. anyway, this is just context.
one thing I have often found a little disconcerting when approaching kink related stuff is that everyone seems to have a very keen idea of how they fit into various boxes. there’s quite a lot of boxes fitting all kinds of different scenario and fantasy. and me being a perpetual contrarian, i am often left wondering, why is it like this? why is everyone either a dom or a sub, top or bottom, etc etc? how is everyone so damn sure of it?
i witnessed a conversation which, while it did not directly address any such thing, did feel like it proved enlightening. a girl was being teased for claiming to be a top when she clearly wasn’t. she was evidently enjoying it, feigning indignation, just as her interlocutor (forgive me, i can’t help using words like interlocutor) was feigning annoyance at her antics, a back and forth that naturally led up to a kiss. it felt to me like i was watching a movie, or studying animation: the gestures and body language, tilt of head or lean forwards, the rhythm of the scene, the acting.
and obviously, or so it seems now, it felt like acting because it was. it was a scene that both ‘players’ were happy to perform for each other and everyone else at the table. i don’t mean that it was scripted, but that they got to express the kind of ‘character’ they wanted. as a newbie onlooker, i played my role too, which was simply laughing at the appropriate moments.
now (this is the ten in the kishōtenketsu), i have in the past written about roleplaying theory - maybe on here, maybe somewhere else? anyway, i tend to look at it through analogy with two related art forms, which are improv comedy and pro wrestling.
improv - and please forgive me if I make any theory errors here, it’s been a hot minute - tells you to ‘yes, and’: to keep the momentum of the scene going by taking what has been contributed to the fiction so far and adding to it, rather than negating a contribution. it further has the concept of an ‘offer’: you introduce an idea with some potential and hand it off to the other person to iterate on.
wrestling is a kind of athletic improv show, and it has its own forest of complicated jargon, which i know a fair bit about despite not watching wrestling. one of them is to ‘sell’: when a wrestler performs an attack, the other wrestler’s job is to act like they’ve been hit, by flinching, staggering, etc. then there is the ‘gimmick’ - the idea of the wrestler’s character, which must also be sold with the help of their partner, e.g. by commenting on it, or having some emotional reaction. the aim is to ‘get over’ by having the audience buy in and respond appropriately (e.g. cheering or booing).
both of these constructs are applicable to roleplaying games - both TTRPGs and informal MMO roleplaying. when you are playing a character, you have a character concept you want to ‘get over’ to the other characters. as a player in a roleplaying game, you also have the job of helping the other players to convey their character. how do you do this? by reacting to stuff (in character, but also out), and weaving it into the story so that it affects other things. nothing is ‘real’ in an RPG until it’s acknowledged by someone else. in TTRPGs, that someone else tends to be the GM, but it can and should also be the other player characters. very few game texts actually spell this out, with the only exception I can think of being Chuubo’s which actually formalises a bit.
how do you go about doing this in practice? that’s where the improv principles come in. some RPGs, like Fiasco, have an explicit scene framing mechanic, where a player is given narrative authority to set up an interaction. this is, in improv terms, the offer. but even without such a mechanic explicitly being in the rules, you have the opportunity to create setups and follow through on them by adding something new, fitting the bounds of the scene. you’re not aiming for comedy most of the time, but you’re still fundamentally playing ‘yes, and’.
ok, so. every conversation is kind of the same, right? here is my autistic-ass metaphor: it’s a game, you have a role to play, you’re trying to get over your ‘character’ for this interaction, and facilitating other people in getting over theirs. the more you interact with a person, the more you get a sense of the dynamic you tend to play. when you meet someone or indeed start a new conversation you’re making offers: here’s a thing i could talk with you about, which is to say, a role to play for this interaction. when you say something, you try to leave an opening to respond, or provide a natural branch point to change topic. just as your character in a roleplaying game (or for that matter a novel) gets more substantial and multi-dimensional the more situations you put them in, the more you interact with someone the more complex a role you can play with them. (something something Shannon entropy)
crucially roleplaying doesn’t require predictability. there are always multiple ways to take something forwards, depending what specifically you ‘yes and’ or ‘no but’ with.
ok, but then, returning to the beginning (it’s ketsu time!), all these roles - well, why does D&D have classes, Apocalypse World have playbooks, Fiasco its tables of archetypes? well, they’re prompts - simple stories that can help you get past the blank page problem, and inject certain ideas into the story when needed. playing a class in a game doesn’t say anything in particular about ‘who you are’, any more than who you play in a fighting game. if you find you like playing certain characters or classes more than others, you might end up with a ‘main’, but that’s only something you figure out by trying it, and it’s not some kind of eternal commitment.
by the same token… well, it pretty much writes itself from here, right?
I’ve probably just reinvented judith butler but nerdier, but hey, the autism. anyway I’m already doing this plenty - by various word choices, by repeatedly telling you I’m autistic and whathaveyou (i didn’t always do that), I’m pretty much setting up some gimmicks right here in this post. and every post on this blog. the people who are really good at posting, and equally socialising, seem to do this kind of effortlessly! but i think the evidence seems to be it can be learned. I can try out different builds. if it doesn’t work, well, gg, I’ll learn from it for next time - and if it’s not fun… well, i don’t need to play that class again. that’s all this big intimidating sexuality thing actually is.
it was literally that simple! i had all the blocks already i just had to put them together! maddening
Comments