![]() I know, different kinda thread right? Makes a change from the 100s of mechanics details and observations huh. But I feel like it's just a class, there's not really much else to it. I feel like maybe I'm fundamentally misunderstanding what the question even means. I'd visualize a Void Elf Rogue as being a Rogue that's a Void Elf. ![]() I imagine my Rogue as a Rogue in World of Warcraft, nothing really past that. I can safely say this is something I've literally never once thought about. How would you visualise a void elf rogue? Would you have a version for each spec?Īlso do you choose yours entirely based on fun? and which one is the most fun for you? I'm wondering what race you play and how you imagine your rogue - do you play a spec based on a fantasy? or just the class allowing the spec to alter based on what's most effective for raids? I do intend on having other rogues, I already have 2 blood elf ones, thinking of develping a Nightborne one and now a void elf one, but struggling to fit it in. So I'm struggling, I want to try a void elf rogue, but wondering how I can adapt their fantasy to fit any of the 3 specialisations. Mage, lock, pala, priest, shaman are all very very specific classes and fields, DHs and DKs even more so. It's really harder with the larger concept classes like rogue, warrior in particular, and to a lesser extent hunter. Warriors are more like soldiers and beserkers and barbarians, more heavy duty, to the lighter duty more versatile rogue. I imagine the class type to be typically, charming, a playboy, rascal - but also light fingered or quick fingered etc Leon Annor maximises the impact of the smallest role of Alfred, whose mania focuses on the chairs that are the only scenery Storey asks for, although Sophie Thomas’s design boldly ignores this stage direction to conjure something like a corner of the Eden Project, all flowers, bowers and scrub.It's a really hard question, - the rogue class can be many things - spy, scout, assassin, bandit, pirate, thief, police, intelligence officer (think CIA, FBI, MI6), gangsters, militia (as opposed to army soldiers), sort like the street smart, individual, Where Home most departs from its Stoppardian and Pinteresque similars is in the presence of a balancing female double act: apparently sweet Kathleen (Hayley Carmichael) and seemingly sour Marjorie (Doña Croll) keep us guessing through Storey’s wily withholding of why each patient is confined and doubt about the accuracy of their self-knowledge. At times, we could be watching Morecambe and Wise. Jack (John Mackay), with a baffled affability, drops anecdotes about an improbable quantity of relatives (“I had a cousin who …”), while Daniel Cerqueira’s Harry has an anguished stolidity, seeming to give nothing away. The main male duo luxuriate in Storey’s verbal wit. So a script that could be seen in the past as a broader metaphor for the traps and miseries of humanity plays as painfully specific reportage, the context also changed by a more generally empathetic reception for a psychiatric subtext from which audiences 50 years ago might have flinched. The varieties of patients he lists in the book – “the half-comatose figures, the bleary eyes, the shuffling feet, the indifference to food, to dress” – are all dramatised or referenced in Home. Josh Roche’s powerful and disturbing revival reclaims Storey’s play by homing in on its increasingly known roots in the writer’s lifelong mental illness, including periods of institutionalisation, as described in this year’s posthumously published memoir, A Stinging Delight. ![]() Painfully specific reportage … Hayley Carmichael and Daniel Cerqueira in Home at the Minerva theatre.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |