Casting questionnaires

[breakinglight11]

Last night Bernie, Matt, and I got together for dinner to discuss plans for editing Paranoia in preparation for the upcoming WPI run. The most important thing we accomplished was to go over the casting questionnaire and the world bluesheet and get them sent out to players; I've very pleased with the edits we made. We've even got three of them back already, a most excellent start. There's a good bit more to do, of course, but that got the ball rolling.

It occurs to me, having filled out a couple of other people's casting questionnaires lately, that mine are probably frustrating to read because I very rarely have any strong demands on them. I know that if the GM casting doesn't know the player this can make them not terribly useful, but what I'm trying to go for as a player these days is "That really good larper who I can put wherever I need because they will make the most of any role I give them." It's like a personal acting challenge, to see if I can get into and make something no matter what kind of character I'm in. So, GMs who read my perhaps infuriatingly noncomittal questionnaires, know that need not worry; you may do with me what you will. I am yours. Use me. :-) 

Comments

[hanasaseru.livejournal.com]

Being indirectly involved in Chateau Ennui planning, I saw your character sheet for that, and based on what you actually said, there was one particular character that I at least thought would work well for you, so your answers weren't completely noncommittal. That being said, I'll make sure Tom saw this entry. :)

[laurion]

Re: Questionnaire - you might consider a mix of directed and open questions. If it is all open, you risk having people fill it out without much effort or useful response. Worse, if you come across someone who does not handle vaguely open questions well (not that they aren't creative, but that they need a little inspiration to be creative) that you'll get no good measure of the capabilities of the respondent.

Re: noncommittal questionnaires - There's a subtle downside to being noncommittal. If you don't twig the GM as standing out for any particular role, your app will be put at the bottom of the stack under the 'they're suitable for any role' heading. This sounds like what you want, but what really happens is that the harder to cast roles, of which the weaker roles can often be described as, are the roles that will be left by the time it gets around to you. By process of elimination (the other roles go to other players) you have sorted yourself into a greater likelihood of a role you won't actually enjoy beyond the challenge of acting. I would argue that both GM and Player are better served by actively apping for a particular type of role. Do you want to be the malcontent? App for it. Do you want to be the spotlight role? App for it. Do you want to be the goon, the heroic lead, the object of romance, the doompuppy? App for it. You can angle for a certain role while still communicating your flexibility and willingness to accept other roles. Just like a resume, apps that don't grab attention or point in any direction get sent to the back of the queue. I used to be the 'give me any role!' kind of person. Maybe I'm just older or less flexible, but I found that I was getting roles that I didn't mesh with before, and I'm more likely to get roles that make me happy, and build a reputation as a capable larper. (Face it, if you don't like the role, it is unlikely to get your best performance. And it's all well and good to -say- you are a good larper. It's another to show it.)

[emp42ress.livejournal.com]

Just make sure you say that explicitly. If I know someone is asking for that, I'll often give them the hard to cast roles, which can be very interesting. Often, however, people who app like that wind up falling into blander roles because they don't stand out (as Chad said). I don't think it's bad to try for it, just make sure you are clear.