Character Immersion or Yourself

[Andy]

To gain a general idea how most re-enact I am wondering if you just interct within your group as yourself, or do you assume a persona and go "in character" most or all of the time?
I am asking this because my group does not do "in character" but are contemplating making the change.

[jvrjenivs]

For the public we are in character. This means when I'm asked something I will always answer as being IC. But when it is about internal issues we act OC, but being a small group we almost know what the others are doing or want to do.

A nice example for this is when we do our slavery/prisoners shows. (Selling of slaves, punishment). Then for the public everything is IC, but intern the lowest person is the boss and decides what is going to happen (IG the slave or the prisoner).

[fasta]

For the public we are in character. This means when I'm asked something I will always answer as being IC. But when it is about internal issues we act OC, but being a small group we almost know what the others are doing or want to do.

We work in a similar way.When the public are about (the call is given inadvance for "authenic",like switching on our Roman brain)which is sometimes between shows in the camp we are IC ,orders and names are in Latin etc. While we have to engage the public in English for them to under stand us ,we act as members of the unit in the time period for that show.

However you sometimes have to come OC to deal with silly people,alot depends on the situation at the time. There are Pro's and Con's for both.

When we are alone things are a little different and would be very difficult when young families are involved to stay IC. Though most people remain in soft kit and use the repro equipment as its part of the reason we do things.

To stay IC can give you more personal reward but it doesn't always work when dealing with the general public. This maybe why some groups do private/non public events during a year.

[Andy]

We do private events, no public events. Just a persoanl choice but I do re-enactment to live (for a brief moment) in another time period and escape the day to day grind, not intermingle with the public, I want to get away from them! I imagine it would be difficult to stay in character with some of the pills out there!

[M. Demetrius]

Well, as a Roman, if you can say, "Quid dicesne?" and "Qualis verba sunt?" (What did you say? What kind of words are these?") and keep a straight face, after a bit they'll just wander off.

Internal grins are allowed. :wink:

[Hibernicus]

When we do public events we are educators and recruiters. Lots of interacting with the public.

When we do private events we are "in character".

We do some IC at public events primarily when someone is engaged in a project: forging, baking, leather work etc etc...

[Lupianus]

No roleplaying for me. Surely, you become another person when you put on your Roman clothing, but for me it's more about becoming kind of a teacher. Not that smart-alec one, but a (hopefully) friendly guy in a fancy outfit who has to tell something about life in ancient times.

That's mainly because I do reenactment now as a single interpreter. I visit schools, roam some ancient sites and visit major events on a private basis. If people ask me something, I always answer as a real present-day person and I try to tell them what it feels like to wear Roman equipment from a modern perspective. Cause that's the only one I know about. I do not pretend being a Roman soldier - I don't have neither the stature nor the language, nor the world of thought of such a person.

Additionally, here in Germany many people are a bit skeptic towards men marching around in armour. I try to explain why I'm wearing it, why I bear (at least sometimes) arms, although I would call myself pacifistic. That wouldn't be possible, if I stayed in a role with no sense for such (legitimate) questions.

My personal view is that roleplaying doesn't add flavour to someone's presentation, if not staged exclusively in a set and agreed scope, where visitors function only as an audience. Apart from that I find roleplaying a bit goofy (personal view, no offence). :wink:

[Matthew Amt]

I tend to go with what I call "2nd person", kind of between a strict first person interpretation (staying in character) and 3rd person (just a modern person in Roman gear). So I call my fellow reenactors by their Roman names, and refer to the ancient Romans as "us", but I make it clear from the start that we are modern reenactors and I don't really pretend to *be* a Roman. I play the role, but not so tightly that I have to work around references to the modern world. So it's easy for me to deal with people asking deliberately stupid questions: "What's that up there??" "It's an airplane. Do you have a real question or do you just want to waste everyone's time?"

In my experience, a strict first person interpretation is too difficult for most reenactors, since you have to know a WHOLE lot about everything in ancient times, rather than just being able to focus on what you know and can teach to the audience. It also puts people off when you refuse to drop out of character, whereas a 2nd-person method sets them at ease and helps them open up and ask intelligent questions.

Valete,

Matthew

[A_Volpe]

I agree with, and do similarly as Matt Amt does.

I think Leg III Cyr for the most part follows this kind of 'rule' as well.

We do try to refer to each other by our Roman name as much as possible, but not everyone has a name yet, it's not 'required' in our group, just adds some flavor. But sometimes people respond better to their real names when you need to yell to them across a field

But we do try to stay 'in character' as much as possible, when applicable (during 'public hours' so to speak)

- and in the case of this past Roman Days in Virginia - We're Roman Soldiers AND we stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last nite!! -

The majority of events that ( I ) do, the public would just not understand what I'm saying or why I'm saying it (and, I just am not fluent in Latin in the first place...That and with a heavy 'MassAHchusetts' accent), nor would they appreciate the level of detail I'd be attempting to get across. So, I'd much rather be a modern person playing a Roman Solider. I think that also makes it more approachable to the public, more interactive.

[Andy]

What level of "in character" are people doing? It appears the notion of "in character" involves more than just persona names and "perod" topics of conversation. Are perople assuming "in character" means using the period language as well?
My interpretation of "in character" is going by persona names and conversing in period topics such as your day on the farm and role play in general. I think that it would add to your atmospheric experience, at least thats what we try and emulate as we only do private activities with no public influence or audience what so ever.

[Arminius Primus]

Ave,

Really wanted to post on this. The common thread is what we do for the public and what we do for ourselves. At public events we are by and large educators. It is unfortunate but in our modern world the only appreciation that is developed for history is through our programs. Seeing a roman, or barbarian at least gives some context to what was supposedly learned in school. While it is difficult to stay IC at a public event, it can be both educational and entertaining for the public. For demonstrations it is always best to have a narrator , explain what is happening and to explain in detail why it is happening.
Personally, my Latin allows me to read some texts and to give and recognize commands. We try to get our recruits to use Roman or Romanized names but all training and interaction with the public is in the local languages.

Sometimes I think we would be more authentic language wise if we portrayed auxiliary troops, as I am sure that local languages were used amongst the troops and Latin used on Parade , guard etc.

Again, I guess the IC / OC is what works best for the occasion Public / Private and what you are trying to accomplish.

Regards from the Balkans, Arminius Primus aka Al

[Robert Vermaat]

It's a bit of a mix. I often start out in IC, but after sometime you just have to 'switch back' to OC. Especially when during interaction with kids who have a tendency to notice almost eevery time when the 21st century crreeps into the conversation...
If education is the goal, IC serves a purpose, bit it has limits. When discussing the history of the place, OC is always better than IC, to retain the connection with the public.

[jvrjenivs]

What level of "in character" are people doing? It appears the notion of "in character" involves more than just persona names and "perod" topics of conversation. Are perople assuming "in character" means using the period language as well?
My interpretation of "in character" is going by persona names and conversing in period topics such as your day on the farm and role play in general. I think that it would add to your atmospheric experience, at least thats what we try and emulate as we only do private activities with no public influence or audience what so ever.

I for instance do almost only public events. So in caracter for me means I'm a soldier of the Roman legion with a roman name, religion etc, but for educational purposes I also have my modern knowledge (as comparing stuff with modern equivalents is a good way to explain some things.)
We don't talk latin (expect commands) because of safety, lack of knowledge etc. and most internal talks are about our research or on going projects, so all Roman related, but not particularly something the real soldier would have talked about).

But I feel it's important to know a little of the soldiers spirit. and act in that way. The life of a soldier is hard, so you don't dance around the camp in armour. If you've spare time off, you'll need those to rest (or play games, as the romans loved to do). Here talking to the public makes an important exception as that means you don't have a IC duty but can't be lazy, either.

In our shows we have our own roles, so we can do real role-playing, but out of that we all have to many roles to really make some kind of role-playing.

[Magnus]

I just go as me...doing anything further seems a bit silly. I guess because I'm not actually a roman soldier, so "pretending" seems too much. Just depends on what your'e comfortable with.

[Andy]

No more sillier than dressing up in armour!