Sketchy

In long-form improv, actors are generally figuring out who they are and what they're doing on the spot. But it's not the case of an actor coming out and saying "I'm a twenty-two year old barista from Santa Monica who does historical Mormon re-enactments on the weekend and also has a sick cat named William."

Instead, the other actor walks up to the first and asks for a latte. The first says hot, iced, or tepid. The first actor has accepted the setting and their character (coffee shop, barista) and added a detail to the setting-- maybe tepid is the preferred temp of Mormon re-enactors and that's how we get into that detail. The conversation bounces back and forth and the scene is built.

But the important point is, both actors are adding details about their own character, the other character, and the setting. Improvisors aren't supposed to walk up to their scene partner and say, "Who are you?" That's not collaborative. Actors should give and accept details to build the scene and characters from nothing together.

Of course, in actual play, players generally aren't starting from nothing. There's usually a setting and PCs and NPCs and backstories. But there are a lot of gaps, both before and during the gameplay. You can't fill in every detail of a life in a backstory doc and you can't include every minute of a day at the table.

For me, the best actual players are doing strong improv work to fill those gaps. These player build the details of their characters collaboratively. Their relationships with other characters--both PCs and NPCs-- feels real because they speak these details about each other and the world into existence.

This isn't to say these players don't have a clear backstory or knowledge of the setting to begin with. Strong understanding of character and setting facilitates good improv (see Luis Carraro's Adventuring Academy.) Between these players and the DM, there's competency with the setting and understanding of characters such that they aren't worried about stepping on each other's toes. If a player who understands the setting adds a detail to the world, the DM can justify it. If a player who's paying attention to other characters adds a detail about another PC, that PC's player can justify it.

Listening, trusting, and building together.

Conversations outside the table are helpful for this, but they're generally building groundwork for improvisation. Without the leaps taken during gameplay to speak vital details to existence, relationships can feel flat and artificial. It's the difference between believing two characters have a rich history together vs. simply accepting it because they said so.

"Wasn't Thjazi called Shadow?"

Tossing the Iron nail to Julien.

Quickly cutting through all the noise to reveal the truth.

While playing Thaisha, Aabria is so conscious of the world and Thaisha's worldview. As a woman whose religious culture has been persecuted nearly to extinction. As a person from a race that every other race of Aramán was happy to leave in subjugation; the suffering of the Runjani was a fair price for their comfort.

You can viscerally feel this in her gentle but clear acknowledgement of Bolaire, her tone when she asked him why he was so angry.

"What exactly do you find to be foolishness, Bolaire?"

The calm, despite the fact that, when it comes down to it, he is angry that the actions Thjazi set in motion blew up his comfortable life. The same actions that liberated the Runjani afterlife. He doesn't think "a couple hundred" Runjani souls are worth it.

"So you're not angry, you're afraid."

It reminded me of when Aranessa was breaking down and overwhelmed because her life was blown up and she has to make hard decisions to move forward. Thaisha used the same gentle, but firm tone then.

"You always had to make a choice and the world was always chaos. It's just touching you now."