Actor without Immersion

[Supplanter]

And I think it's clear - I hope, anyway - that at no point have we separated GM from players in this construction. (Damn I wish we had a good word for "live person involved in role-playing.")

I've adopted the term "user." Among its benefits is that, if its implications are absorbed, it may promote a certain becoming modesty in game designers. :wink:

Re Actor v. Immersion, the distinction between the two player/character relationships is clear to me. It's a vector thing: in Actor, the player is behind the character, making the character "go" so as to best present the player's conception. In Possessor, the character is behind the player, or say within the player. "The question is who is to be master, that is all," in the famous last words of an ovoid fellow of some renown.

Best,


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

Um, Jim, except for one thing: the character is fictional. Feelings and sensations aside, the player creates the character. This creation may not have much verbal or accessible aspect to it, so that it "feels" like being possessed, but the creation is one-way. The vector you speak of is always player to character.

If anyone is SERIOUSLY going to claim that an artistic or imaginative creator is REALLY "possessed" by an external entity, such that a fictional character moves and speaks through the real person ... well, that moves me into "go back to your planet" mode.

Users are real. Characters are created by them via imagination and communication with other users. I readily acknowledge that "possessor" role-playing feels otherwise. To claim that that feeling represents an actual character-to-player causal vector is ... well, bonkers.

Therefore "possessor" is an experiential term, and in stance terms, I *still* can only perceive it (via myself or via observing others) as a behavior, not itself a stance, embedded within the stance called Actor.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I dunno if I'm going to adopt the "user" terminology, although I appreciate the humor in it.

[Logan]

I think I'll side with Jim on this one. Some writers speak of hearing their muses. Some writers also often speak of having their characters living in their heads while they're writing. I'm sure those writers at times give free reign to those characters and write much more interesting stuff than if they'd used their usual thought processes alone. I see no reason why it's not the same with roleplayers. The character is fictional, but it has a sort of life of its own. The thing is, it's built from facets of the creator's (player's, writer's, GM's) personality. Maybe not everyone experiences this sort of thing. Maybe not everyone can. I don't know. I do know that people are complex and I think most of us have a certain duality in our psyches. Writers like JMS rely on it in order to work.

Look at it this way: When we need to make a decision, we may weigh the pros and cons; have a sort of internal debate. At that point, with whom are we debating?
How do we reach the final decision?

That said, I'll go back to my own planet.

Logan

[jburneko]

On 2001-09-08 13:07, Ron Edwards wrote:

If anyone is SERIOUSLY going to claim that an artistic or imaginative creator is REALLY "possessed" by an external entity, such that a fictional character moves and speaks through the real person ... well, that moves me into "go back to your planet" mode.

Hello,

I'm also going to side with Jim.  I don't know if you've ever done any acting but I was a heavy participant in the theatre department at my college.  I found that as rehersals got smoother and smoother *I* was less and less present.  Come performance night I'm conciously aware of doing the warm up exercises and the next thing I know I'm taking a bow with very little recollection of anything in between.

Simarly I would find that it became increasingly harder and harder to get out of character.  I would begin to take on the character's manerisms, speach patters and personality quirks.  Scared the hell out of me. I would have to conciously fight back the character during my normal life.  Personally, I have never achieved this state durring a role-playing game but...

Can you 'channel' a fictional character?  ABSOLUTELY.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Go back to your planet, all of you!

Folks, really. I am fully aware, from my experiences in role-playing, writing, acting, fighting, and many other circumstances, of the subjective phenomena you are describing. Yes, it feels like that.

But don't - for one second - attempt to speak of actual processes and decisions by the real humans as being performed or originated by anyone besides the real humans. It is not the usual mental process we tend to think of as "I do something," but it is OUR OWN mental process, of its kind, nonetheless.

As usual, whenever I make this point, people misunderstand. They think, "Ron is saying that people are creating in some kind of controlled, I-see-myself-doing-X kind of way. That's funny, when I do it, it often feels as if it's arriving externally. Poor Ron, scientist that he is, he just doesn't understand art."

I am saying no such thing. I am fully acknowledging the subjective experience you are all describing. I am happy to experience and utilize it myself when it occurs. However, it is still a creative process of one's own mind; it is tapped into in a way that does not admit easily of verbalizing or on-the-spot awareness.

Please review my points in this thread and their purpose. We are discussing a sensation or mode of creativity that is commonly experienced and acknowledged. We are also discussing stances. I am claiming that that sensation/mode is often associated - and may even require - a particular stance. It is a reasonable point and I have not yet seen any refutation thereof.

Best,
Ron

[Supplanter]

Ron, yes, it's a fiction, metaphor or delusion. The point is a) it's a material fiction, metaphor or delusion - one can argue that for many creators it's a necessary one too; b) it (immersion) can be a goal of play - some people play RPGs because they want to get that feeling.

I suspect that when I move to the planet of people who have felt compelled to reject "the Edwards model," it will be because its behaviorist approach is not just inconsistently applied but misguided, as inadequate for RPG theory as it was for psychology. Humans have intentionality. People game because they mean to game. An RPG theory that fails to account for the intentions of gamers is incomplete, indeed woefully so. It is not scientific but scientistic. It puts bad science in the proper place of good criticism. It retards rather than advancing understanding. (Yes, I am a Searleite.)

The difference between actor and possessor is clear and has been clearly stated - presenting a character to others versus discovering it for yourself. That difference has implications for design aspects from attribute scores through task resolution to reward systems. It makes different demands on session conduct. Recognizing the distinction can even be crucial to a GM's ability to tell when someone is "having fun" (the biggest box). A number of us have pointed out the materiality of the distinction. At some point the contents of a given model become less important than recognizing that we know what we know.

Best,


Jim

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jim,

"An RPG theory that fails to account for the intentions of gamers is incomplete, indeed woefully so."

Not guilty. You have just paraphrased what GNS theorizing is all about, as well as its application to design.

Your rephrase of the claim regarding Actor stance and immersion is significant, because it relies on a meaning for Actor stance that I do not accept - "communicating the character to others." This phrase is not useful, as it can mean practically anything. Enormous numbers of role-playing actions carry out this function, including all of the stances.

I have stated, over and over, what *I* mean by "actor stance." I have stated, over and over, how it relates to exactly that form of immersion that we all recognize and (to various degrees) enjoy.

Why can't anyone seem to address this? I've made a strong point. No one has managed even to paraphrase it accurately, much less offer debate. I get (1) insupportable claims regarding mystic external entities, and (2) yet another terminology dispute. And now I get (3) caricaturing of my views into behaviorism.

On second thought, never mind. The original question of this thread was answered and (apparently) agreed upon: no, actor stance does not require immersion. I trust that GBSteve is OK with this, and if that issue requires any more discussion, I'm happy to continue.

The associated or expanded issue, of what immersion might be and how it relates to actor stance, has apparently touched off too many sore points. When I have to reiterate a point three times in less than 15 posts among us, and when the discussion scatters into weird places this quickly, it means that people are feeling threatened. That's enough for me to call attention to my point having been made, and to sign off.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Hmmm... first I apollogise for any consternation I've caused. Yes, Ron, I think that we all agreed with your original point, but then you made a further one which I disagreed with. Perhaps I should have begun a new thread, but it certainly seemed unnecessary at the time. Again, if that was a mistake, I apollogise. Also, I probably did come off as threatened, for which I also apollogise. I know that the general ethic of the forge is one of RPG "ecumenicism". I was merely intent on trying to point out that the current stance model didn't do much for my players' needs.  

Anyhow, that having been said, I think that we have made some interesting points. I think that what Jim was saying really crystallized (if you'll allow me a cliche) my thoughts on this subject. Essentially, stance looks at player behavior, or certainly seems to us to, while what I am (and others, I sense) looking for is the motivations behind the behaviors. To a certain extent these desires lead to certain types of actual play, moderated by the design of the game to an extent. The intent of looking at the motivations behind these behaviors is to find ways to create games that cater to these particular desires.

Perhaps (and at the risk of complicating things unnecessarily; still I'll posit) we should consider speaking of motivations in addition to stances. So while one might be frequently use actor mode, his motivation for doing so might be "Theatric Portrayal" or it might be "Immersion in Character" or it might be both simultaneously. The point being that I can envision mechanics that would better reward any of these three motivational positions.

BTW, to all present, many have pointed out that the term Immersion is confusing due to the fact that it seems to have different implications for different people. This has been one of Ron's assertions from day one. And this thread is probably proof of that. Still, there seems to be an impetus to using it, and that alone may indicate that it needs to be investigated further and clarified.

All IMHO,

Mike Holmes

[Le Joueur]

Ron,

Since you mean to take my words out of context without even citing them, I reply in piecemeal of yours.

Ron Edwards wrote:
As I have an extensive background in theater, including both performance and theory, being lectured about what "method" means is irritating

The lecture was never intended for you, I remember your background as well as you do.  You have to realize you have a tendency to reduce things by using terms such as 'method acting' without explaining it to people who don't have your background.

even though you are right about its usual misinterpretation.

And this is why I included the lecture, to head off such misinterpretations in others.

However, you are not right simply to assume knowledge of Stance definitions based on that medium.

My point is that you are not right to assume that people reading this will not bring the definitions from that medium to their (mis)understandings of your proprietary "Stance definitions."  In this I attempt to illustrate a weakness with the terminology choice.

I submit to you that the terms for Stance do NOT originate with me and have an illustrious, well-documented history for role-playing that clearly states what th'hell they mean.

This kind of 'appeal to authority' does not make the terminology choice any better.  You have long championed a shift away from the terminology chosen by the same "illustrious, well-documented history" (replacing 'Dramatism' with 'Narrativism'), so I don't think you have much cachet in implying that 'older' terminology is better.

Therefore the reader's claim "just to know" what Actor stance is because he has a familiarity with acting, for film and stage, is not valid. The dialogue about Stance reaches back to the early 90s and has to be assimilated. If you have objections to this state of affairs, take them to John Kim et al., not to me.

If you have a problem with the product, stop selling it.  The future of gaming will have to include bringing in new people who don't have this kind of history with the dialogue; you have to expect them to bring their own experiences with them for the language you are jargonizing.  I am simply saying: if it keeps causing this problem, maybe its time to stake your claim to some new terminology (as opposed to defending what you use by saying, "The dialogue about..." and then appealing to unavailable authorities).

Most importantly, I vehemently and quickly deny ALL similarity of my use of "Exploration" and "imaginative commitment" to ANYTHING to do with "the narrative."

Here, I am guilty of creating jargon that is (unconsciously) inclined to confuse Narrativists.  Perhaps I should have called it the 'sequence of in-game events' instead of the 'narrative.'

I am discussing something that - until one further mental step is made - has NO GOAL beyond the enjoyment of what is being imagined. Therefore committing to a narrative or anything like it is NOT included. By adding this content into the concept I describe, you have potentially harmed the debate seriously.

I have a hard time seeing how discussing the relationship of stance to the potential 'sequence of in-game events' either implies any goals whatsoever or damages this debate.  Can you explain where calling foul on the misunderstandings inherent in 'old school' terminology harms a discussion that (it seems to me) is stumbling over exactly that?

I think there are three fundamental ones in role-playing: Actor, Author, and Director.

Again I must point out that, to outsiders (arguably the future role-playing gamers), these all usually appear to be terms about how one uses a character in a detached fashion (not the least bit impossible, but hardly all-inclusive).  This stems from the fact that all are quite clearly taken from movies, television, or theatre.

While tradition, I submit so is the confusion.  Other, clearer terms can easily be chosen, or the concept of one-word terminology can be taken as a problem and something else can be had.  The point I am trying to make in this discussion (and it is far past the point of relevance) people are being confused by the apparent co-opting of theatrical terminology when discussing 'immersion' (which I don't think is in the lexicon theatrical).

I have stated, over and over, what *I* mean by "actor stance." I have stated, over and over, how it relates to exactly that form of immersion that we all recognize and (to various degrees) enjoy.

So now these terms are yours?  I thought you said they "have an illustrious, well-documented history [in] role-playing."  If it comes down to a case of "what *[you]* mean..." versus how people (mis)interpret your words, then my point is made.

And let's deal with your claim of people 'missing the point:'

Why can't anyone seem to address this? I've made a strong point. No one has managed even to paraphrase it accurately, much less offer debate. I get

(1) Insupportable claims regarding mystic external entities,

That sir, is a cheap shot.  The only FAQ maintained by this forum on the subject uses the terminology 'channeling,' which is the source of the "mystical external entities" theorization.  If you accept the (to me) inadequate stance names, then you must this as well for both "have an illustrious, well-documented history for role-playing" in common.

(2) Yet another terminology dispute,

Then change the terminology!  If something causes problems every time it is used, I think it is high time something new is explored.

(3) Caricaturing of my views into behaviorism.

This kind of oversimplification is attracted by broad rewriting of the meaning of words like 'actor.'  If you can't stand the heat....

On second thought, never mind. The original question of this thread was answered and (apparently) agreed upon: no, actor stance does not require immersion. I trust that GBSteve is OK with this, and if that issue requires any more discussion, I'm happy to continue.

How neatly you sidestep the issue I saw coming to fore.  Whether immersion requires 'actor stance.'  (Or my argument that your use of the term is so specific that it has little left in common with what the language has it mean to the point of being little more than your opinion.)

Why can't you "address this" in a "debate?"

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-09-10 10:29 ]

[Ron Edwards]

To all, even the parts addressed to specific people,

Fang, don't bare your ... um, fangs (hey wait a minute) at me. No need.

Many of your points are well taken and you are correct to call me on, for instance, taking your method-acting point personally. I am chastened.

I also freely admit that the terminology is in flux (how many stances, etc). What is NOT in flux, however, is what Stance is ABOUT. If the discussion is to progress - and yes, I take responsibility for NOT helping it do so, in my frustration - then that "what Stance is about" can't be permitted to twist out of view.

As to the issue at hand, however, I stand firm. (1) We have dealt with GBSteve's inquiry. (2) The second issue (which I don't think I side-stepped, but rather raised and I think resolved) is way too harsh on all of us and I for one am ready to take a chill-pill.

Mike has nailed the issue of that touchiness, though - I am talking about what people do, and other people REALLY want to talk about motivation. I respond as follows: go ahead. However, I think using Stance terminology to do it will be destructive to the emerging theory. Also, I have to bow out of that conversation. Motivations, and discussing them, gives me hives unless a HUGE amount of groundwork has been laid.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Hey - can we not refer to this "imaginative investment" as Suspension Of Disbelief"?

Heres a question that might be useful for the stances:
"wheres the camera?"  I notice a difference in behaviour between Immersive and Actor stances might be analogous to looking at the character (3rd person shot) or though the characters eyes (1st person shot).  I am reminded of a couple of entries in a "You Know You Are A Roleplayer" list which went:
- you flip between referring to yourself in the 1st and 3rd person
- ... and your friends all know what you mean.

I also feel that discussions of The Method in acting are somewhat missing the point - an actual actor using the method is probably not in Immersive stance, they are in the Actor stance OF ROLEPLAYING.  For the actor, the fact that they are adopting RP as opposed straight portrayal is probably quite significant, as people sometimes say of "the greats" that "they don't act".  No, in fact they RP.

My thought-forms for the stances are as follows:

The Actor is portraying their character to the other participants.  They are conscious of their character as a designed artifact, in the third person.  Actors often narrate "how it looks" to others.  To some extent, they are able to look AT their character and describe what they see.

The Audience is observing and appreciating the action.  This can even be a character mode of behaviour as much a player mode.  The Audience also allows the player to receive out of character information in an appropriate box.  Devices such as cutaways are really prompts for players to adopt Audience stance temporarily, although they often do it spontaneously (esp. in circumstances where "the party" is separated.)  In contrast with Ron, I do see this as a recognisable player stance.

The Author is also, like the Audience, able to process SOD-challenging information by handling it via black boxes - in this case the player is consciously aware of the game as an artifact, and is thus able to intervene in it directly.  SOD has been suspended (but not broken) and placed in an appropriate box for the duration.

Anyway, I post this as a request for clarifiaction to an extent.  I see an overlap with what I am describing as Author ands what Ron is describing as Director. I would say to GB Steve that I wholly agree with his initial point, that Actor and Immersive are not identical, because of the relationship to SOD-challenging data.  I wonder, if in the grand scheme of things, it might not actually be a sub-category of Author rather than Actor, but anyway I certainly observe it as an actually-existing play style.

0.02

[Le Joueur]

Contracycle wrote:
Hey - can we not refer to this "imaginative investment" as Suspension Of Disbelief"?

I used to, but in light of the problems associated with the misunderstandings of the common uses (or the professional uses outside of role-playing games) of these words, I am moving away from the practice.  Take for example, "imaginative investment" could just as easily be the work creating a character long before it is used in a role-playing game.  (I think I have seen this used as an idiom of writing about the pre-rough-draft creative process.)

"Suspension of disbelief" clearly has a home in movie-craft and has to do with 'taking the audience with you' in the story on the screen.  While this has superficial resemblance to what you are referring to in role-playing games, I think role-playing is severely limited by the unspoken constraint to just this kind of depictive technique alone.  Especially when it can be so much more.

This is why I have begun to refer to the process of playing a role-playing game as "thinking within the context of the game."  One of the side benefits is that this description is inclusive of players who approach gaming much in the same fashion as one might a single-character scale war game. (I have seen this among people coming from a strong Warhammer background, and I don't consider it outside the realm of role-playing gaming.)  If I am still not making sense, take a look at the "behind the bar" part of my Get Emotional! article.

I also feel that discussions of The Method in acting are somewhat missing the point - an actual actor using the method is probably not in Immersive stance, they are in the Actor stance OF ROLEPLAYING.  For the actor, the fact that they are adopting RP as opposed straight portrayal is probably quite significant, as people sometimes say of "the greats" that "they don't act".  No, in fact they RP.

The fact that this needs to be clarified even under the common misunderstand of "The Method" is exactly why I suggest that it is a poor, last resort in trying to describe immersive play.  It would be easier and clearer to just describe play directly instead of likening it to acting in any fashion.

Anyway, I post this as a request for clarification to an extent.  I see an overlap with what I am describing as Author and what Ron is describing as Director.

On a side note, I wanted to suggest what I think is the difference between the 'Author' and 'Director' stances.  (I do this so that more knowledgeable heads can correct me.)  Both involve a good degree of input into the game beyond the familiar 'players only control their characters, and gamemasters control everything else.'

The difference as far as I understand it (and I warmly greet any commentary that fine-tunes this) is that the 'Author stance' affords players the ability to manage details involving the depiction and exploration of their characters, much like affecting anything that 'radiates out' from their character even when such detail is generated by other parties.

In 'Director stance,' players are actively encouraged to go a step farther and generate complementary details within the setting and background of the game much for the same reason, something like starting outside of their character 'building in' to it from the rest of the game.  This affords much more concrete connection between the character, how it is 'practiced,' the way that it fits into ideas like premise and theme, and the game as a whole.

You see, I don't have any problem with these ideas; I think they are some of the best going.  It's just the poor terms that were chosen for them.  I mean, while they do have a romantic ring to them, look at the confusion they cause.  I have never meant to say we should throw out the ideas, merely that they deserve better titles.

Fang Langford

(Here's my 2¢, and I'll raise you 2¢.)

[Mytholder]

Anyway, I post this as a request for clarification to an extent.  I see an overlap with what I am describing as Author and what Ron is describing as Director.

On a side note, I wanted to suggest what I think is the difference between the ?Author? and ?Director? stances.  (I do this so that more knowledgeable heads can correct me.)  Both involve a good degree of input into the game beyond the familiar ?players only control their characters, and gamemasters control everything else.?
[/quote]

My understanding is...
a player in Author stance can add new details to the world, but has no control over how they are used. A player in director stance has control over how they're used. For example, imagine a scene where the PCs are pinned down in a warehouse. One player comes up with the idea of calling someone with a tank to smash through the wall and save them.

Actor player: Do I know anyone with a tank?
Author player: I know Jim, who's a tank driver. Can I call him on my cellphone?
Director player: I call Jim, my tank driving buddy, and he's doing to drive down here and smash through the wall.

For the actor player, everything comes through the gm. For the author player, everything is approved by the gm. For the director player, everything is ok unless deliberately contradicted by the gm.

Actor does have unfortunate connotations about "portraying a character" though, whereas in this context it's really about player power, not roleplaying per se.