https://www.legrandyesand.com/

This is a start-up festival that just began last year, all non-profit. Lately the English community here has really been trying (and succeeding) at breathing some new life into the scene.

There was a surprisingly great turn-out last year, and apparently we're getting a lot of artists from New York this year. If you're in the northeast region, come check out La Belle Province! Don't worry - most of the shows are in English.

https://sollykp.substack.com/p/method-acting-npcs-using-this-one

You may find the roll table helpful for teaching purposes, since it's just a more accessible/numbered version of Johnstone's objectives "glossary" at the end of Impro for Storytellers (if you want to be the teacher that brings a d20 to your classes).

Hello everybody! I'm teaching a class tomorrow on roleplaying villains, and while planning my class, I realized it might be helpful to write out my thoughts. And since I'm writing it all down, I might as well share it with y'all as a resource.

I'm going to write out some history here because I think it's helpful to understand where ideas come from, and why they are important. But if you want to just see the "one, simple trick", you can just scroll down to "Applying Fast Food Stanislavski".

I think when people consider playing NPCs, they often default to focusing on voice acting. And that's totally valid, I consider it one of the three basic pillars of improvised characterization. But there's another pillar that often gets overlooked, unless you've taken a lot of drama classes: objective. A lot of RPGs these days even have NPC sheets come with pre-baked "agendas" and so forth, but I find most GMs don't really understand how to apply this concept properly.

So let's talk Method Acting.

What is Method Acting?

I think, when people think of Method Acting, their minds often go to Daniel Day-Lewis or Jared Leto: getting really "into character" (whatever that means), and fully adopting their emotional mindset and mannerisms, without regard for Bleed.

I don't think I need to tell you that this is a. not super accurate and b. not super helpful (and c. not very healthy).

When we're talking about actual Method, we're talking about the school of dramatic acting founded by Konstantin Stanislavski, and the traditions carried on by his students. The premise of Stanislavski's "system" is rather simple. To quote Keith Johnstone: "He believed that if an actor is absorbed in trying to achieve a purpose, automatic systems will kick in."

To put it in my own words:

Using your conscious will to believe in the same things a character believes, to want the same things a character wants; in order to feel the same way a character feels, and to do the same things the character would do.

I find that's an insightful way of putting it for our purposes, because it gets to the heart of all Roleplay reasoning: "I did X because it's what my character would do"! If you are doing a thing because you truly believe it's what your character would do, and for no other reason, then congratulations! You're method acting.

The Meisner Method

Ok, that's cool and all. But don't method acted characters normally have a script, and nuanced backstory, and an experienced writer at their helm, and take years of expertise to adopt as an actor? Well, not necessarily.

Sanford Mesiner was one of Stanislavski's star pupils, and his "technique" of the Method is probably the most favoured amongst all prestige actors today. His style was pioneered by actors like Marlon Brando, who saw character work as a holistic art of the mind and body.

According to Meisner, all characters are inertial. They only act insofar as they are acted upon, and they only act with intention. They do not care about whether or not they are "themselves", instead characters act to affect other people and their environment. They have something they want to achieve in everything they say, do, and believe.

Fully adopting the Mesiner Method for theatrical production requires undergoing a lot of training involving spontaneity and vulnerability. For all those who nerd out on such things, check out the famous Meisner Repetition Exercise.

BUT, we can pull from Meisner this basic principle of characters only acting towards their objective to create something entirely new. And using this for improvisation was pioneered by improvising legend Keith Johnstone.

Objectives and Tactics

Keith Johnstone is essentially the father of modern narrative improvisation. While much of American improv was focused on improv as a methodology for producing comedy, he was much more concerned with investing in storytelling and "being obvious" as methods for producing improvisational theatre (and it usually ends up being funny anyways).

In Impro for Storytellers, Johnstone outlines, as far as I am aware, the first time somebody specifically taught Objectives and Tactics as a methodology for improvising characters. The book is from the 90s, but I believe he was teaching this method much earlier. In a section titled "Fast Food Stanislavski", he outlines the following exercise:

>I tear paper into long strips, and write a purpose at the top of each.

The father's strip says: 'to give people a good time'.

The mother's strip says: 'to get sympathy from other people'.

The son's strip says: 'to give people a bad time'.

The daughter-in-law's strip says: 'to be thought intelligent'.

This fails to delight them (because at some subliminal level they understand that knowing your purpose doesn't help), but then I divide the class into husbands, wives, sons and daughters and ask each group to write a list of things that their 'characters' might do to achieve their purposes.

They laugh happily as they write their ideas, but some of them soon get stuck, even though I'm only requesting six items.

'Don't search for good ideas,' I say. 'The purposes don't have to work.'

"Why not?'

'You've seen a lion-tamer removing his head from the lion's mouth and towelling off the saliva? Well, it would have been a lot more memorable if he'd failed.'

He then gives an example of typical lists. Here's one for the Father who wants to "Give People a Good Time":

• Smile, be friendly
• Give presents
• Ask advice
• Respond promptly
• Introduce people
• Offer food, drinks, drugs, etc.

According to Johnstone (and also, by my own personal experience teaching), this very quickly leads students to a much more holistic and truthful way of being on stage. By focusing naturally on what they want to achieve, improvisers "get out of their head" on how they ought to be, and instead focus on how they can affect others. This kickstarts what we might call "Meisner Mode", which is a term I just made up now but I'm sticking with.

And it centres around two basic concepts of playwriting/acting: Objectives and Tactics.

An Objective is the thing a character desires above all else. As Johnstone points out, a character's objective is not just "to rob a house" if they're robbing a house, it's to "impress their friends" or to "annoy their parents". The strongest Objectives, for the purposes of dialogue/acting, always involve affecting another character.

A Tactic is the various methods ("purposes", in Johnstone's words) by which a character tries to achieve their Objective. If you have ever been reading a play and seen the word (Beat) scattered seemingly randomly, that is the point at which a character realizes their tactic isn't working and changes.

A character without an Objective has no reason to be there. A character without Tactics has no purpose by which to act.

Writing out lists of Tactics is helpful - indeed Johnstone has a massive glossary of Objectives like "To seduce a man" and "To be thought of as smart" in his book. But a character thusly adopted with an Objective, by my experience, will eventually find their own tactics as time goes on. Like any other form of performance, it's a skill you can master with practice. And the only way to practice is by doing it in a live environment over and over (ie your games).

And that brings us to:

Applying Fast Food Stanislavski

So, your players walk into a tavern. You describe a mysterious hooded man in the corner, a bartender with a brimming smile, a strange wanted poster on the wall, a dragon on the loft banister. All rich and glowing with atmosphere.

"Is there anybody else in the tavern?" they ask.

"Uh... yeah. A... [rolls dice] goblin," you reply.

"What's his name?" they ask.

"Uh... Boblin?" you say.

"We go to Boblin."

Oh god! You know nothing about Boblin. What do you do?

Well, you could lead with physicality, or voice, but those are stories for another time. Right now, you need as intriguing a character as possible, one that seems motivated and mysterious. One that you know will reliably hook the party into this chapter's quest.

You close your eyes. You have 5 seconds to make a decision. What do you spend your mental energy on?

My suggestion is to use Fast Food Stanislavski.

Now, I would personally suggest you use this incident to practice the true hardest thing you can do as a GM: make a decision. Choose, right here, right now, what Boblin's motivation is. "To make others feel dirty"? "To seduce player X"? "To make everyone afraid"? Make that decision, and then go through every tactic you can think of, as soon as the last one is foiled.

Let's go with "To make everyone afraid". How would you, as a person accomplish this?

Maybe have the goblin try to be as mysterious as possible. Open his eyes unnaturally wide and have a menacing expression (now your Objective has chosen your physicality). Have him speak in unpredictable and startling sentences, with a low timbre and sinister register (and now your Objective has chosen your voice). Have him constantly ask questions about if the characters are feeling ok, if they have noticed anything off (and now you have a very intriguing hook). And so on and so forth...

However, doing this spontaneously takes practice, and we don't always have the time or emotional capacity to be doing literal Method Acting. You should practice when you have the opportunity and you feel safe doing so. But sometimes you need a quick reference.

And since we're talking roleplaying games, I would be remiss to not leave you with a rolltable to get you started. So allow me to present:

Roll Table Stanislavski

When you're introducing a new NPC, and you want them to be strongly motivated, just roll a 1d20, and choose an objective from this list. Reference the Tactics listed as needed, or roll for them as well (they're all d6). Yes, you can literally sit there and just go through the tactics every 5 or 6 lines of dialogue, and it works surprisingly well. But, of course, it will work best if you simply repeat the mantra that is the Objective in your head over and over again, and then act.

Most of these (1-15) are straight from Johnstone, some (16-20) are mine own creation. Check out Impro for Storytellers for much more comprehensive lists of Tactics for all of his objectives.

Number	Objective	Tactics	Notes
1.	To be thought of as normal	1. Ask dull questions 2. Check appearance, opinions 3. Find others strange 4. Laugh in moderation 5. Panic momentarily then instantly recover 6. Seek reassurance (“Is this ok?”)	If you go hard on this one, players will find the character highly suspicious
2.	To seduce a character	1. Get close to them 2. Moisten lips, moan 3. Be playful 4. Be overly vulnerable 5. Ask many questions 6. "Say that again..."	Can be used for creepy characters or comic relief, depending on the vibe
3.	To be thought beautiful	1. Flash teeth, smile too much 2. Check appearance constantly 3. Name drop 4. Fish for compliments 5. Find other people ugly 6. Be languid, sensual	Great way to make a character immediately hateable
4.	To give someone a bad time	1. Be sarcastically polite 2. Contradict them 3. Interrupt them 4. Start sentences with "you always" (or if they just met: "people like you always") 5. Talk only about yourself 6. Give unsolicited advice	Do not apply this to characters the players will actually fight, only to ones they can't fight without major repercussions
5.	To be high status	1. Be very relaxed and still 2. Delay before reacting 3. Straight posture, face unaffected 4. Move smoothly - be still often 5. Often use people's names 6. Take lots of space	Humorous if applied to a peasant, loathsome if applied to a king
6.	To be low status	1. Admire other's possessions/qualities 2. Be wide-eyed, jumpy 3. Be incessantly cheerful, even when you shouldn't be 4. Have nothing but "it doesn't worry you" 5. Apologize constantly 6. Take up little space	Highly likely this NPC will be adopted as the party mascot
7.	To get sympathy	1. Sigh 2. Have a brave smile 3. Weep 4. Tell a sob story 5. Identify yourself as the victim (somehow) 6. Be at a loss	This character is a punishment/trial to get through. If played to its full extent, it's essentially a hard-mode social encounter. Use that information as you see fit.
8.	To show someone that they are boring	1. Yawn 2. Know what they're going to say 3. Nod or agree too soon (you weren't really listening) 4. Interrupt 5. Look at watch/sundial 6. Change subject	This is a surprisingly good objective to apply to a villain you want the PCs to despise, but also desire the approval of
9.	To appear happy and contented with everything	1. Behave as if you have a delightful secret 2. Have a song in your head, bob along 3. Be playful 4. Be positive 5. Talk freely (maybe overshare) 6. Offer to help, but don't really care	Great character to get the players momentarily distracted, but quickly moving on. If you overplay your hand, though, they may become fixated/suspicious.
10.	To be thought a hero	1. Be on an unrelated quest 2. Keep head still when you speak 3. Give bold stares 4. Take risks eagerly 5. Constantly reference your "beloved" 6. Issue dares	Obviously suitable for a rival party, but also an interesting Objective for a weak character
11.	To be thought intelligent	1. Constantly correct others 2. Quote scholars (make them up) 3. Make thoughtful sounds ("Ahhh, yess, hmmm") 4. Make notes 5. Name drop 6. Starts sentences with "In my opinion..."	Yes you're literally just playing a Redditor
12.	To be thought a jerk	1. Brag 2. Have bad manners 3. Pretend you didn't what others said 4. Make a mess/be clumsy 5. Pass blame onto others 6. Constantly bring up skeletons in others' closets	The classic henchman personality. Endow your goblins with this, and your players will have no issue with mowing them down.
13.	To be the life and soul of the party	1. Be loud 2. Be sexy 3. Know fascinating gossip 4. Open your eyes wide, eyebrows up 5. Remember names and use them 6. Admire people and objects	This NPC has a 50% chance of having an PC fall in love with them
14.	To be judgemental	1. Accuse people of random things 2. Exaggerate 3. Be moralistic 4. Be shocked... appalled! 5. Offer self as a model 6. Endow bad qualities in others ("Ah, so you desire not but gold? Greed drives you!")	Perfect for the classic mad king archetype
15.	To accept guilt	1. Apologize 2. Avoid eye contact 3. Help people more than they need 4. Often say "Do you mind?" and "Is this alright?" 5. Over-explain literally everything 6. Help people incompetently	A classic type to add into a murder mystery, you can decide afterwards if they're a red herring
16.	To dominate others	1. Tell someone to do something, then get angry they did it 2. Stand and wait for others to bow 3. Assume you already know what others want 4. Hold your head up, face of contempt 5. Smile like you know something, then drop it 6. Kill someone defenseless	The BBEGs of BBEGs. If you really get into the Method of it, this character shoulf break down into a pathetic mess when they are finally defied
17.	To impress your friends	1. Laugh loudly 2. Look over your shoulder at your friends while talking 3. Whisper into a friend's ear, look at a PC, and giggle 4. Repeat what a friend said and laugh 5. Closed posture to outsiders, arms crossed 6. Say something random, implying it's an inside joke	This character can either be sympathetic or obnoxious (or both). Suitable for a gang of bandits or school children (is there a difference?).
18.	To make others afraid	1. Open eyes unnaturally wide 2. Speak haltingly, suddenly 3. Ask "did you hear that? Oh... nothing." 4. Look at everything except the PCs 5. Wince at random noises 6. Ask if they "feel ok" and "what's wrong"	If played right, extremely foreboding
19.	To make others feel safe	1. Stand tall, strong 2. Say "get behind me" whenever anything approaches 3. Put a reassuring hand on others' shoulders 4. Confident smile, eyebrows furrowed 5. Constantly polish weapon, armour 6. Look off into distance with determination	It's likely some of your players are doing this subconsciously already
20.	To be funny	1. Laugh at your own statements, even if they're not jokes 2. Eyebrows up, eyes searching faces 3. Speak in rhyme (even if you're not good at it) 4. Give knowing looks to other characters 5. Try to riff off of anything 6. Stare at others for way too long with a mischievous smile	Annoying on a court jester, extremely amusing on an enemy the players are currently fighting

Voila! What did I miss?

My Objective is to make people recognize Roleplay as its own art. I hope this helps!

Howdy folks, I am surveying the community to prepare for an upcoming webinar (which will not be linked here, per rule 4). If you could fill it out, you'd be helping me out, and the GMing community more broadly!

All correspondence is anonymous, and all questions are optional. Data/analytics collected will be released back to the community (and this subreddit) as a community resource, fully anonymized.

https://forms.gle/YsqUSPDRe5FMVwn96

Thank you all, and I hope you keep critting!

My spacious 3 1/2 is up for lease transfer!

This place has been good to me, with a non-corporate landlord (this is his only unit) and a stellar location. It's time to say farewell, and pass it on to somebody who can treat it right. Suitable as a bachelor pad, or for a couple who don't mind smaller space

- Comes fully furnished, with all kitchen appliances included, queen-size bed, couch, kitchen tables, chairs, etc. ️

- Excellent location: A 7 minute walk from Laurier and Rosemont metros, 10 minutes from Parc Laurier, across the street from the Mile End, right on Montreal's main bicycle artery Every amenity you would ever need within walking distance.

- Quiet building, constructed in 2011 Excellent soundproofing, kind neighbours, and wheelchair accessible ♿

- In-unit laundry with full-size machines!! And dishwasher!

- Comes with bicycle garage parking for safe storage of your baby

- The large living room space is easily configurable for working from home, with room for a desk and workspace

- Great insulation, with a Hydro-Quebec estimated cost of $67.50 monthly, on average Lease transfer is for July 1, with some flexibility on the move-in date. Optional purchase of my AC unit, already installed (though the apartment has a built in de-humidifer).

- No pets, unfortunately

Obligatory Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or a tenancy advocate. Just a guy with too much time on his hands. If you find yourself in a dispute with your landlord, please contact your local housing committee!!

Hey everybody, me and this sub have a problem. That being: A lot of people just saying stuff with no citation, or even a great grasp of the case law. Asking for sources just leads to a lot of incredulity, especially from the landlords. Well I'm sick and tired of it, and I want a place people can actually reference for all the claims we throw around on this sub.

This thread specifically is a follow-up from a previous thread of mine where a landlord once again makes a spurious claim that becomes the top comment.

First, let's just get this out of the way:

Serious vs. Non-serious Refusal

In spite of the common refrain that "lease transfers are dead" after PL-31, they still remain around with their intended function intact: allowing a tenant to leave a lease mid-way through the leasing period. They just need to find a replacement. It works the same way it used to, except the landlord now has three option upon receiving your Notice of Lease Transferal:

Refusal for a Serious Reason: The lease transfer is refused, and you need to start the process all over again (or contest it at the TAL, which has given us all the delicious case law I am going to cite)

Refusal for a non-Serious Reason: The assignee does not get to take over the lease. However, the lease is terminated for the date indicated on the Notice of Lease Transferal (so make sure the date for the transferal is the one you plan to move out!!)

Accepting: You know how this works

This, of course, conjures up a question that has stirred up more confusion than a kitten in a museum display case: What constitutes a serious reason for refusal? Well, in theory, it is "problematic behaviour or an inability to pay the rent". But what on god's green earth does that actually mean, and how do you prove it? This will be the topic of the rest of this post.

Now you may think: with the law being so new, there can't be much precedent. But indeed, with the way the law is worded, the reasoning for what constitutes a "Serious Refusal" has remained basically intact. This is good news, because we can reference all case law on this subject going back to the 70s. (Except the SOQUIJ database only goes back 30 years, so we'll say since the 90s for our purposes).

Unfortunately, Quebec's tenancy laws and policies can be quite vague. In particular, what determines the grounds for a "serious refusal" is kept purposely nebulous by precedent. In theory, this allows arbitrators at the TAL to be lenient in the way that they apply the law. In practice, this creates a lot of arguing on this subreddit and between tenants/landlord in what is and is not acceptable.

So let's actually get down to the brass tacks here and actually discuss what constitutes a "serious reason" for a landlord to refuse a Lease Assignment. We'll go over a lot of common myths and/or uncertainties I see swimming around, and take them apart one at a time. And we'll use TAL case precedent for all our claims. Keep in mind that all the following scenarios and statements apply to serious refusals:

"You need to give the landlord the assignee's proof of income/credit/whatever"

One thing that has has been consistently upheld in every case I read was that the assignor/tenant (aka the person trying to get out of the lease) only needs to supply the name and address of the assignee. That's it! [citation] It is then the duty of the landlord to reach out to the assignee for any additional documentation. [citation]

Now, to facilitate a speedier response, it might also behoove you to supply some contact information for the assignee, like a phone number or email address. If the assignee also gave you things upfront, like a credit score or paystubs, you can include those. But you are not obligated to.

Why is this important? Because what the landlord asks for, and how they argue it may constitute proof of insolvency, is going to be the backbone of whatever they take to the TAL. This is a bit of a "don't talk to the police" situation. The more information you offer, the more chances they have to find a reason to deny the transfer.

Do not get twisted into thinking this means you can just send a name and address and smugly watch as your landlord struggles to conjure any information. The assignee is still obligated to provide some proof of ability to pay rent/solvency. Buuut.... the landlord cannot be picky.

"The landlord needs references/paytsubs/CORPIQ forms to proceed"

The landlord does not get to pick and choose what constitutes proof of solvency in this situation. They cannot deny the transfer just because the assignee has no references [citation], no paystubs [citation], or refuses to fill out the CORPIQ form [citation]. They especially are not obligated to provide their SIN.

The assignee just needs to provide some kind of proof that they have consistently paid rent in the past, and can in the future. This can include previous rental receipts, good references, a credit report, etc. But none of these are strictly mandatory. All that needs to be demonstrated is a pattern, one way or another.

I even found a case where the assignee had no job, but simply a great guarantor and a lot of growing savings. [citation]

"The assignee needs to be a citizen/permanent resident"

No [citation]

"The assignee can't be self-employed"

Invalid [citation]

"The landlord needs a security deposit"

sigh No [citation]

"The assignee needs good credit"

This one is pretty universally true, I have not found a single case where a tenant with proven bankruptcies/evictions has been accepted. Just for posterity, here's a [citation] where the applicant had a good salary, but was denied on the basis of bad credit alone.

"The landlord must consider the guarantor"

In multiple cases, the TAL affirmed that the landlord is not necessarily obligated to accept a surety. But it can provide good backing when bundled with other things. [citation]

"The assignee needs to have sufficient income"

So, this is where things get interesting. Some will tell you that the tenant only needs to prove they need to have income equal to [rent] + [utilities] + miscellaneous costs. And theoretically, this is true. However, after reading dozens of cases reach the same conclusion, I think I can definitively say that the arbitrators at the TAL almost always deny a lease transfer if this amount is over 50% of income. [citation] [citation] [citation]

But what about 30% to 50%? This one is more iffy, and indeed I found it quite difficult to find any cases that dealt with this range. I am not kidding yall, I could not find a single case where they stated the amount of rent + utilities, and it was between 40-50%. But here is a case I found particularly illuminating:

>Qui plus est, opine le Tribunal, le pourcentage de ses revenus que la cessionnaire potentielle aurait consacré à payer le loyer de ce logement, pourcentage calculé à 33% par le locateur, n’était tout de même pas si éloigné de la norme de 30% qu’il jugeait acceptable, alors qu’un pourcentage de plus de 50% aurait peut-être été plus alarmant. Il n’est pas rare que plus de 30% du revenu d’un ménage soit consacré au logement, dans la conjoncture économique actuelle, alors que le pourcentage de 33% jugé trop élevé par le locateur n’a rien de particulièrement inusité.        

Traduction pour moi et mes anglos:

>Moreover, the Tribunal observes, the percentage of the prospective assignee's income that she would have spent on rent for the dwelling, calculated at 33% by the landlord, was not so far removed from the 30% standard he considered acceptable, whereas a percentage of over 50% might have been more alarming. It is not uncommon for more than 30% of a household's income to be spent on housing in the current economic climate, so the 33% figure deemed too high by the landlord is not particularly unusual.      

Other cases will frequently also cite the 30% threshold in great detail [citation], but will always qualify that it cannot be a strict measure on the basis of percentage.

So unfortunately, and I hate to say it, it's going to be subjective. And, quite frankly, it kind of appears to come down to the judge's whim, and whether they had pancakes for breakfast or played League of Legends that day.

Personal Opinion Alert: what this tells me is that proof of income is the last thing you want to show*, since it is the easiest thing for the landlord to pick over and haggle in court. Work with your assignee to figure out what other information you could provide instead, using the information in the previous sections above. Rental receipts, references, savings accounts, credit scores, and employment confirmation can, in some combination, serve as "proof of solvency" in many cases. It may be the case that you just need to show proof of income anyways, perhaps even the majority of the time. But again, it is not strictly obligated.*

"The landlord needs to reply within 15 days or they are assumed to have accepted"

I don't think I need to bother proving this one, since it's stated explicitly everywhere. But I cannot emphasize how many landlords lost their case because they did not reply within 15 days. I would estimate it was about 1/3 of all cases. Another point for using registered mail!

"The landlord cannot change their reason for refusal."

So I have not heard this one anywhere before, but I saw it come up in quite a few cases, and I think it's actually really important: The landlord cannot deviate from the reasons for refusal, once they send their notice for it.

So, if your landlord denied an assignee because they "aren't cooperating properly", and then, when they obtain further documents, later change their mind to say it's actually because of insufficient income, that is not admissible at the TAL. The only valid reasons for refusal are the ones initially given in their response form.

Cases of Interest aka "A bunch of bullshit"

In which the landlord forgot to ask for proof of income and retroactively decided it was important

In which the landlord is called out by the judge for being picky for no good reason, and also violating the charter of rights and freedoms

A gong show where nothing was written down, but the entire meeting was recorded on tape

In which the landlord rejects SEVEN (!!) lease transfer applications in a row and commits a charter violation

In which the landlord just kind of... made up that they had bad income?

A triple bogey: The landlord replied after 15 days, said it was denied because he wanted to sell the place, and was given ample proof of savings!

Thanks for reading, please argue now in the comments and we can all (surely) reach a quorum.

>Quebec Court of Appeal has ruled that actors can smoke on stage during performances, finding it can be protected as artistic expression.

Justice Judith Harvie ruled that banning smoking on stage does more harm to freedom of expression than good.

>The case stems from fines issued under Quebec’s tobacco control law, which bans smoking in enclosed public spaces, including cultural venues.

The government appealed a Superior Court decision that struck down a $500 fine against three Quebec City theatres for allowing actors to smoke during performances between 2017 and 2019.

Those shows included Conversations avec mon pénis presentend at Premier Acte.

>“In this play, the man is talking to his own genitalia because he got testicular cancer diagnosis. So, of course, he’s going to be stressed. And if you’re the audience watching that and it’s a fake cigarette, it kind of breaks the suspension of disbelief that’s necessary for the theatre.”

You heard it here first folks. The next time you're at a show and the actor is smoking an authentic ciagrette, you can thank testicular cancer.