Incharacter Play vs. co-Author

[jburneko]

I have a feeling here that I'm going to open up a huge can of worms.  You have been warned.  In Ron's new review of Little Fears he talks about the game being one of those games that encourages players to both immerse themselves in their role as children AND co-author a story which Ron claims are contradictory goals.

Note 1: I use the word Immerse here very loosely.  This is not a discussion on what it means to play immersively.

Note 2: I am paraphrasing Ron.  Please see the actual review of details on the statement before attacking the claim based on my wording.

So this is what I'm thinking about:  WHY do so many games include both these goals if they are in fact contradictory?  All of White Wolf's games do it.  Little Fears apparently does it.  In a recent discussion Theatrix has been accused of it.  The Window most definitely does this.

I think part of the answer lies in the fine line between Actor and Author stance.  After all the outward observable behavior is exactly the same.  The Player says, "My character does X."  The only difference between Actor and Author stance is that the decision to do X was based on different things.  In Actor stance the decision to do X was based solely on in character knowledge and motivation.  In Author stance the decision was based on some out of character knowledge like a Premise or a Theme or even a Rule.  But the point remains that the outward observable behavior is identicle.

So I pose a concrete question that may explain why A LOT of game designers think that coauthoring and immersion are simulatenously achievable.

Fact 1: The player says, "I go to visit my cousin vinney."  This is an IN GAME statement.

Fact 2: Cousin Vinney has not existed any where in the game world until this IN GAME statement.  He was not introduced during character creation and he was not at any time introduced or implied to exist by the GM.

Question: Which of the following most applies to this example:

a) This is an example of Director Stance because the player is introducing an element, namely Cousin Vinney, into the game world that exists outside the character.

b) This is an example of Author Stance because the player is making a statement about character action and the decision for that statement is based on out of character information.  That is, since Vinney was not introduced by the GM or at character creation, technically the CHARACTER does not have knowledge of this entity known as Cousin Vinne.  Vinney is clearly a PLAYER construct that must have been created based on some interest outside of character knowledge and motivation.

c) This is an example of Actor Stance since there is nothing here to suggest that out of character information was used.  That is, it is reasonable to assume that the character knows about his Cousin Vinney and that the events in the game have led to some motivation for the character to go visit Vinney.  Therefore, the player has made this decision solely based on in character knowledge and motivation.

Now I'm going to make some wild speculation.  Please understand that this is wild speculation and wild speculation ONLY.  My guess is that Ron and other HardCore Narrativists would answer (b).  The idea being that since the character does not exist, the character can not create external elements.  Therefore the PLAYER is creating this construct known as Cousin Vinney and therefore is asserting authorial power.

However, I further speculate that the writers at White Wolf and in particular the author of The Window would in fact answer (c).  That since the action REASONABLY arises from in character knowledge and motivations that the player is in fact BOTH remaining immersively in character AND coauthoring simultaneously.

Thoughts?

Jesse

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Now I'm going to make some wild speculation.  Please understand that this is wild speculation and wild speculation ONLY.  My guess is that Ron and other HardCore Narrativists would answer (b).  

8< -------- snip

However, I further speculate that the writers at White Wolf and in particular the author of The Window would in fact answer (c).

This is a pretty common schism I've experienced when playing Vampire LARP. The trick is to do the whole "in character" thing in a very intense, immersive way while still being able to inject things into the game that are outside your character's control/knowledge/power. If you can't, and you're not engaged in a railroady plotline courtesy of Herr Narrator, then you're pretty much doing LARP 101 (where you sit around and do nothing, but you do nothing while in character). Yawn.

As long as we're using movie terminology here with regard to Stance, I'm gonna play the odd man out and say that this is Director stance. Actor stance (which is clumsy, because really it's a Character Stance) is when you're the character. Period. Author stance (which is the real Actor stance, where you use stuff -- stuff that appears later in the script, stuff from other "movies," stuff from your personal life -- to further your role in the movie) allows you to riff on material not enclosed within your character's "sphere of power" (ahem). Director stance is more or less mucking with the script (with or without the D's permission, but with permission is almost authorial...).

So yeah. Director stance. Y'all people are crazy. Crazy!

[lumpley]

A friend of mine told me about a game he ran recently.  He wanted more player ownership of the world so he turned descriptions back over to the players:

Player: I examine the doorknob.
GM: Okay.  What does it look like?

He found that some players, this disrupted their identification with their characters and made them cranky, but other players just went ahead and described the doorknob from their character's point of view.

I took a dumb writers class thing many years ago and the trick the guy taught us was get in character and look around.  What's happening?  Follow your characters around and write down what they do and who they interact with and what happens.

So I think that world authoring from in character is possible, is a trick that you can learn, and comes more easily to some people than to others.

I'm not positive about the Stances, since the definitions we've been using over in that other thread are about what kind of decision you make about whom, and don't seem to speak to identification with your character(s) one way or the other.  I'm beginning to think that you can be in any Stance you want, and you can be in character or out of character, independently.

-lumpley Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Three big points, and then my answer.

ONE
Part of the problem here is that the phrases in-game and out-of-game are terrible terms. I don't use them in my essay because either one can mean any stance (just like speaking in-character or out-of-character voice/gestures).

TWO
Many role-playing statements are really several statements in one. This applies to the framing vs. stance vs. effect statements we've been discussing (or babbling about) in other threads, as well as to shift-stance statements. In order to make sense of what people are REALLY DOING when they role-play, we need to distinguish between a SENTENCE and a UNIT OF CONTENT.

THREE
The final issue - and this is a BIG one - concerns the context of examples. People are forever asking questions like, "But how would you describe the explosion of the airlock," completely out of context of the necessary data of the instance of play. The same goes for most of the examples people have been using in Stance discussions.

I say this because Jesse's baseline observation - that Actor and Author stances are indistinguishable to the observer - is incorrect. That is like saying that the key to a workplace office and the key to a house are indistinguishable - which is absolutely untrue when we back up and see what the hell is happening regarding their use. That difference in use IS what Stance IS.

FINALLY, ON TO VINNEY
"Fact 1: The player says, "I go to visit my cousin vinney." This is an IN GAME statement."
"Fact 2: Cousin Vinney has not existed any where in the game world until this IN GAME statement. He was not introduced during character creation and he was not at any time introduced or implied to exist by the GM."

This is two statements, not one (and I do not mean the two "facts," I mean the actual phrase "I go to see Cousin Vinney"). I also chuck the "in-game" qualifiers because they are meaningless. I hate to upset people by saying this, but all role-playing is itself out-of-game.

A) In creating Cousin Vinney, you have described Director Stance. This is the only possible conclusion based on my definitions (which are often misread).

B) The "I go to see him" portion of the statement is either Actor or Author. To distinguish between them, we need LOTS more context, both before and after the statement.
- If the character is going to Vinney's to get a cup of tea, but the player is making it clear that Vinney has access to important resources that the character might be offered, then we are talking about Author stance.
- If the character is going to see Vinney because the player has a strong need to play the character's "family-oriented" concept (whether explicit on the sheet or not), and subsequent play reveals this, then we are talking about Actor stance.

I will concede that Actor stance can be hard to identify all on its lonesome. However, Author stance and its distinction from Actor is tremendously easy to spot.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

On 2001-11-08 20:46, jburneko wrote:
So this is what I'm thinking about:  WHY do so many games include both these goals if they are in fact contradictory?  All of White Wolf's games do it.  Little Fears apparently does it.  In a recent discussion Theatrix has been accused of it.  The Window most definitely does this.

I think I can take a pretty good stab at this (although since the LF author is here I guess he can clairfy): by many role-player's definitions co-authorship is a natural outcome of immersion (unlike here where the definitions are contradictory).

I think for a lot of people playing immersively is like being the guy who writes all the dialog in a screenplay (or maybe just the guy brought in during production to 'punch-it-up'). He doesn't change the plot. He doesn't make any major decisions as to how the conflict gets resolved. He still thinks he's an author. His name is on the screenplay. He's in the credits. Joss Wheedon got 2 lines in the X-Men movie. One of them was "You're a dick." Say what you want--his impact was there.

-Marco
[Tarantino doing the (uncredited) Silver-Surfer dialog for Crimson Tide is another example where character portrayal can have an impact on what a lot of people would call 'the story.']

[Ron Edwards]

Marco,

EXCELLENT point.

Let's consider a story-creation process with multiple authors, all of them using your point as THE fundamental basis of their contribution to the story.

I suggest that the only predictable result is babble, and no story at all.

Someone, somewhere, must be taking another approach to the process in order for there to be a story, which the dialogue/portrayal is contributing to (and I agree, it may even be illuminating, or TREMENDOUSLY contributing).

Let's take it to role-playing, then. If that "story someone" is the GM, and only the GM, then we do not get story CREATED by the group, but by the GM. The players may contribute to and illuminate THAT story. This is what I call the "Moog organ + pennywhistles" model of role-playing. It is absolutely, perfectly, and properly considered Simulationism, with a primary emphasis on Exploring Situation and secondary emphasis on Exploring Character.

If the players like to CALL and CONSIDER themselves Authors, then we now see classic Illusionism. Jesse can be our resident expert on this topic.

Just in case anyone is feeling sensitive or hunting for "what Ron is attacking," I have one thing to say - this is a fine & dandy & (as Marco points out) common mode of play. If you like it, keep doing it.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-11-09 12:30 ]

[jburneko]

Hello Again,

Ron has clearified my use of terminology, which I admit was being used in a very sloppy manner.  However, I was kind of being sloppy deliberately to further illustrate my point of where the confusion comes in.  My original question is WHY do so many game designers think it's possible to Co-Author from Actor Stance or for the GM to be responsible for polt and the players to be protagonists simultaneously.  I want to know what they are REALLY thinking about.

My first conclusion, which was what my original post was getting at, was that there is a confusion between the Stances.  Since most game designers have not thought about these things to the degree we have, it is in all likely hood they have looked at things like my orignal example and said, "Your character would totally go do that." and therefore they are co-authoring and making decisions from actor stance simultaneously.

Another possibility is Marco's suggestion that by adding 'color' elements such a dialog and characterization this earns them the title of co-authors.

Yet another possibility is the confusion between "story-result" and "story-creation" discussed on other threads.

I think the core of the confusion is in one particular style of play.  I believe that this style of player is more common than people think.  I think it is the style of play that is used when people come here and say that they create story from Actor Stance.  This style of play goes something like this:

All players are encouraged to make decisions from Actor Stance ONLY.  There maybe some subconcious Director Stance going on such as in the creation of Cousin Vinney.  But everything about what the character actually DOES is made from Actor Stance.  The GM in this case is not railroading, nor is he using the All Roads Lead To Rome technique.  In this style of play it is up to the GM to make the players decisions plot worthy.  If the player says he wants to go see Cousin Vinney it's the GMs job to make Cousin Vinney interesting.  The GM is expected to kill Vinney, or have Vinney kidnapped, or make Vinney a traitor, or simply make Vinney a compelling source of conflict.  Why Vinney is important is left entirely in the hands of the GM.  All the players are responsible for is acting how their character would act while the GM's job is to render those actions plot worthy.

THIS is the style of play I think designers are thinking of when they say players should make decisions from Actor Stance exclusively, yet the goal of play is to coauthor a story.  This style of play personally fascinates me.  What do you make of this style of play?

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jesse,

I think what you are describing is Drift from Simulationism (sub-class Illusionism) to Narrativism (sub-class character-Premise, sub-class vanilla).

The transition occurs when (1) the players' Author or Director stance statements become more important to the GM than a pre-planned plot, and (2) the statements are so common as to be relied upon.

If these do not happen, we remain with the Moog/pennywhistles (which, again, is fine).

What interests me is that much of 1990s game design ends up militating AGAINST the transition. Published metaplot is blatantly contradictory to it. Development (experience) systems without link to any conceivable Premise are contradictory as well. Lack of metagame mechanics, for more traditional systems, ditto. Most importantly, shunting control of IIEC wholly to the GM's hands (the most serious and common flaw in Drama-based games).

I consider that most of the blocking of the transition results directly from economic interest (acknowledged or not) in terms of publishing. A published metaplot means splat-books forever to reveal it, spinoff novels, retro-history revelatory sourcebooks, and more. Establishing a dependency on continued publications is a major strategy of many RPG publishers, and thus the Drift to Narrativism would be a disaster for them. Placing story in the hands of the GM (as a channeller for them) and keeping it there is the functional tactic.

I do not consider any of this to be conspiratorial - "Hey, let's convince the gamers that they get to be authors, then screw'em and take their money because WE'RE the authors, that they are only READING!" But one does not need a deliberate conspiracy to have the exploitative phenomenon occur, when money is involved.

Best,
Ron

[Marco]

On 2001-11-09 12:57, jburneko wrote:

THIS is the style of play I think designers are thinking of when they say players should make decisions from Actor Stance exclusively, yet the goal of play is to coauthor a story.  This style of play personally fascinates me.  What do you make of this style of play?

Jesse

Hi Jesse,

I see that as "GMing as Performance Art"

In this mode the GM is a bit like a stand-up comic doing an improv act. The players do what they want them and the GM works 'doubletime' to make it interesting. In this case the GM is probably assuming more responsiblity for the gaming session than a pre-plotted scenario.

-Marco