There are a lot of different kinds of participatory theatre actors and LARPers. One of the interesting things about the medium is its flexibility. At some point in the future I may go into detail about how the Threefold Model of Gaming applies to serious interactive theatre, but for the purposes of discussion I’m going to be talking about two specific types of actors: Stalwarts and Plothounds. The primary difference between the type lies in their expectations.

To an extreme Stalwart, what’s on the character sheet is gospel. They expect to be handed their character complete with clues to intended development. Tell them that their character hates elves and they will pursue their anti-elf vendetta for as long as possible. They will ally with elves only very reluctantly, when all else fails, and with plenty of resentment and veiled insults. Tell them that their character trusts Bob and they will trust Bob to the end of the earth; only by confronting them with incontrovertible proof of Bobian perfidy will they ever change their mind, and even then they will stand around shaking their heads in wonderment.

Generally, those whose environments are primarily Gamist (or who aren’t too bright) will end up as Stalwarts. They’re not going to eagerly leap to change their views about a situation simply because of a slight change in circumstances any more than they’re going to donate money to the poor in Monopoly. Their job is to portray the character they are handed as written.

To an extreme Plothound, the most important thing in the world is carrying forward the plot in the direction it’s intended to go. Plothounds look at details on their character sheets as a current situation that is being modified by the circumstances in which they find themselves. They seek to develop their characters in the way that the story requires, and will sometimes do things because they “think they’re supposed to.” Tell a Plothound their character hates elves, and unless you make it damn clear that’s not supposed to change the actor may deliberately seek out elven friends so they can “grow as a character” and “learn the error of their ways.”

Heavily Narrativist environments (and those with prima donnas) produce plenty of Plothounds. Their charactersheets are only a starting point. These are the actors who seek out games like Illuminati and Junta that encourage roleplaying, and they may even make deliberately bad decisions in games simply because those decisions make things more interesting for everyone (or, in the case of wargames, were historically accurate).

You will almost never see a pure Stalwart or Plothound. (Both stereotypes are presented negatively above so I can’t be accused of picking favorites.) However, the interesting thing is that a new actor entering an environment heavy in either type is very likely to begin gravitating toward that majority camp. What’s more, actors looking for a new troupe or play group will look for one where their existing tendencies will be rewarded — in other words, groups with high populations of the same type.

So how is this relevant to a Star Trek episode? (Spoilers!)

(more…)

The following is a spoiler for a Star Trek original series episode. At the point at which the storyline begins to twist and turn I will make a cut. Honestly, though, if I were you I’d just go ahead and read it. You have, after all, had thirty-nine and a half years to get around to seeing this episode.

The Enterprise (the REAL one under Captain KIRK) responds to a Federation colony distress call to find it deserted, destroyed by an unidentified and now-vanished ship. Abruptly, Spock alerts the captain that a heavily damaged Klingon ship has appeared out of nowhere. A Klingon escape party beams down to the surface and takes the Away Team hostage, blaming Kirk for the damage to their vessel. The Klingon captain, Kang, claims the Enterprise lured him there with a false Klingon distress call and demands the Enterprise as reparations. Off in the distance, a shimmering light silently observes the conflict.

(more…)