Stance Theory: The Hegemony of One Character

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

In my view, imaginary characters vs. imaginary inanimate objects are not wholly 1:1 with Author-Stance objects and Director-Stance objects. That is an enticing idea, but not accurate.

At times, an NPC is basically animate furniture. Alternately, various objects which in reality would be inanimate (or whatever word you like) act as characters, using whatever criteria you like (others' sympathy, conclusive motion/action, etc).

If anyone wants to experience truly ridiculous frustration, do a search on "Ajax" and read any Stance threads that pop up. Stupid horse.

I maintain that Blankshield is correct, but POV is a nebulous way to put it. If anyone has a better way to phrase it, that'd be wonderful to see, but at this point, I consider this non-problematic in practice. When an in-game entity is being treated as a character (and hence moving him/her/it around is Author Stance) and when he/she/it is being treated as an object relative to another character (hence Director Stance) is obvious; it is related, as I see it, to basic issues of what "story" is in the human mind.

John, the example Walt is giving is simply not working. I agree with his basic point, but (a) it's not a fundamental point and (b) the example is merely opening itself up for you to butcher the point.

The relativity Walt is talking about occurs only in the case of having more than one character to deal with. I suggest this happens a lot more than people think (and it certainly is part of GMing most of the time). But it is not fundamental to Stance; a lot of the time people get all hung up because they think Stance must be operating for every participant for every possible or imaginable character or event in play, all the time.

The example with the lock is not helping because Sebastian is still not being involved in the statement. All the action is Bartholemew and the lock. Walt seems to have noticed this with his "(trivial)" parenthetical addition.

A better example of the onesey-twosy relativistic effect that Walt is driving at is this: "Bob uses his axe to smash the lock on Ray's cage. A fragment of metal pierces Ray!"

That is Author Stance for Bob and Director Stance for Ray. And the key is not that the fragment is "an inanimate object," but rather that it is not a character.

Best,
Ron

[lumpley]

(If you're really craving the frustration, probably you'll have to search on "rumex" and "jurux" too. Not only was my poor horsie a grief and an irritant, but also nobody remembered his name.)

-Vincent

[simon_hibbs]

I think the confusion about stance stems from the fact that stance is only relevent to instances of roleplaying.  That is, they articulate the player's relationship to a character in a roleplaying game.

Pleas let me clarify what I mean.  In a wargame I might make statements about the terrain, weather, the movement of units, etc. is this director stance? No, because that's a term from roleplaying games that has to do with how you roleplay. To roleplay, there has to be a character that you are playing. If your input to the SIS isn't with respect to a character, then you aren't roleplaying. For example when I write the background for a game setting, I am not roleplaying and so have no stance. When Greg Staffor writes articles about the geography, history and religions of Glorantha that material might be used as the source for a wargame (WB&RM), computer game (KODP) or roleplaying game, it has nothing to do with the act of roleplaying, and hence stance.

Similarly during a game the GM might make up background information, describe objects, etc. If he says 'a statue with a threatening appearance dominates the centre of the room' that statement has no stance, it's not an instance of roleplaying. If he says 'Alyra sees a threatening-looking statue dominating the centre of the room', that has stance (Director) because it's with respect to a character and is an instance of roleplaying.


Simon Hibbs

[Walt Freitag]

Ron's quite right, the parenthetical "trivially" was important in that example. So important that it probably shouldn't have been parenthetical. In the Bob and Ray cage-lock-smashing example, we have little reason to involve Ray at all in examining the stance of Bob's narrated action.

(Ray does benefit from Bob's action, and perhaps the player's entire motivation for Bob's action was to benefit Ray. That can be taken into account in judging whether the player's narration of Bob's action might be Author or Pawn stance rather than Actor. But there's still no need to describe the action as having a stance with respect to Ray. As Ron said, all the action is with Bob.)

Let me attempt another better example. Ignatius is attempting to sneak into a cell block to free a comrade. The stealthy incursion is interrupted by the approach of a guard making rounds, and there are no side passages for Ignatius to flee into. Ignatius attempts to hide. The GM asks for a roll on Ignatius' hide ability, and the result is a Great Success that gives (under the system in use) Ignatius's player the right to narrate events.

The player narrates, "So effectively does Iganatius blend into the shadows that the guard is just about to literally stumble over him. Just then a prisoner at the far end of the block, waking up from a nightmare, makes a commotion. The guard stops and turns around, and hurries away toward the sound."

That's a Director stance action as far as Ignatius is concerned. And for most purposes, when we're focusing on the player and the PC as we usually are, that's all we need to say. But we can also say, if we want to get all technical, that the narration of the prisoner's action was (most likely) pawn stance with respect to the prisoner, and that the narration of the guard's action was (most likely) author stance with respect to the guard.

I think this example is consistent with Ron's point:

The relativity Walt is talking about occurs only in the case of having more than one character to deal with. I suggest this happens a lot more than people think (and it certainly is part of GMing most of the time). But it is not fundamental to Stance; a lot of the time people get all hung up because they think Stance must be operating for every participant for every possible or imaginable character or event in play, all the time.

- Walt

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

That example would work fine, Walt, if the group has established, or has any interest in establishing, the guard & other prisoner as anything but boundary-setting furniture.

However, if the guard could just as well be a spy-sensor, and if the prisoner could just as well be some kind of malfunctioning household item, and if neither of these has any particular emotional oomph (i.e. "the prison" is not a character, because some prisons/fortresses are), then there is no need to concern oneself with Stance except regarding the stealthy character.

Best,
Ron

[clehrich]

However, if the guard could just as well be a spy-sensor, and if the prisoner could just as well be some kind of malfunctioning household item, and if neither of these has any particular emotional oomph (i.e. "the prison" is not a character, because some prisons/fortresses are), then there is no need to concern oneself with Stance except regarding the stealthy character.

Wait, so Character and thus Stance are defined in terms of emotional oomph?  

If I have two people talking, and one is a PC and another is merely a receptionist who's there to say whether the PC gets into the office or not, and the receptionist could in theory be replaced in a different setting by a computer key-code system, then the receptionist is not a character?  And thus all Stance in this instance is always necessarily defined with respect to the PC?

This is quite important.

Stance
The cognitive position of a person to a fictional character. Differences among Stances should not be confused with IC vs. OOC narration. Originally coined in the RFGA on-line discussions; see John Kim?s website for archives. Current usage modified in GNS and other matters of role-playing theory. See Author, Actor, and Director Stance.

Character
A fictional person or entity which may perform actions in the imaginary situation. One of the Components of Exploration.

Stance is defined here dependent on Character, but Character is simply defined as "perform[ing] actions."  If in fact either Character or Stance also requires an additional element of emotional oomph, that's an important change or clarification.  And I think this gets to the heart of the confusion about Stances.

If Stance is defined with respect to any "person or entity which may perform actions," then in the PC-receptionist example we open up all sorts of possibilities.  If what is required is also "emotional oomph," then the Stance becomes extremely simple and, IMO, fairly trivial.  Certainly "emotional oomph" would need definition, so as to keep it from being the same as what we might call something like "being in the limelight," but Stance becomes a fairly simple matter analytically.

My impression was that Stance had lots of possibilities and breadth precisely because it requires nothing like this, but then I've never been very happy with the whole notion of "ephemera" to begin with.  If Stance is reduced to something requiring "emotional oomph" and thus becomes extremely simple, then what happens to the difference between two different players' narrative control of various acting beings (as opposed to Characters in this new sense)?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Chris,

Please check out some past discussions; I found that a search on "jurux rumex" turned up most of the key points.

In one of those threads, I talked about how nominal characters in role-playing have "THE" or "A" plastered on their heads, with "A" characters often promoted to "THE" informally during play.

An "A" character is furniture which may or may not walk and talk (eat, have sex, etc). It is important to the participants in that it may impose barriers or be of logistical interest. It is hardly even a character at all and in fact is only called one because it shares in-game features with the real characters (i.e. being a person and not a desk, for instance).

A "THE" character is important to the participants in terms of his, her, or its ability to have conflicts of interest, rather than merely to impose barriers or open doors, or to provide Color.

Again, none of this has anything to do with "person vs. object" as those terms would apply in reality. Fiction kicks that distinction in the groin. I like to talk about the building in Die Hard, the bottle in The Gods Must Be Crazy, and the balloon in The Red Balloon as characters, for instance, which in this case means "THE" characters along with the human protagonists of those stories.

Some people thought my distinction between "A" and "THE" was problematic and that they couldn't see how the difference would apply during play. I just shrugged, really. The difference is palpable and unmistakable as far as I'm concerned, and always has been in any role-playing I've done or observed.

Best,
Ron

[Walt Freitag]

Speaking of shrugging, I guess my bottom line is that the difference between

A player's action with respect to some character X has no stance if X isn't a character whose interests the players are concerned about.

and

A player's action with respect to some character X has a stance, but if X isn't a character whose interests the players are concerned about, that stance is irrelevant.

is orders of magnitude too small to be worth arguing over.

- Walt

[Paganini]

Raven,

The current set of stances are an artifact of an outdated and poorly-articulated model. We've learned a lot since Ron wrote the first GNS essay, and yet, the current glossary is using the same definitions.

Now, it's one thing to stick with something that works perfectly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But it's another thing to cling to tradition in the face of progress. But it's not that there are just a few wacky dissidents. The discussion that spawned this thread was spontaneously generated in an IRC chatroom. There were about six of us participating, IIRC, and we all independently voiced similar problems with stance theory. I know Ron's response is that the problem is with our understanding, and not with the material. IMO, this is an unfortunate weaknesses that Ron has: to maintain that the fault is in the (sometimes substantial numbers of) people who see a problem, rather than with the idea, or the text itself.

It's no big deal; everyone is human. But this wasn't just a bunch of noobs mouthing off in that chat room. It was a bunch of experienced designers who have been paying attention to the Big Model for years. This is stuff we think about. "You guys just don't get it" cuts no ice with me in this discussion.

Having said all that, here is my claim:

Current Stance theory is important. It's an eye-opener. But it needs to be used as a starting-point, not an ending point. Right now it's a vague, incomplete mishmash of LP-related concepts trying to float in one boat.

Follow me for a minute. (And, while you're reading, keep in mind that Universalis is the most pure formalization of this process that I've come across. If each RPG is a specific instance of the data-type "RPG," then Unversalis is the meta-definition of that data-type.)

Think of the SiS as a multi-user 3D modeling environment. You've got a bunch of people sitting at their computers, all plugged into the same limitless void. Basically, a network. The users (the players) build and manipulate constructs in this environment. These constructs are analogues for imagined experience. That is, a construct is information that describes and defines some feature of the environment. It could be a denizen (person, creature, etc.), a social system, a geographic feature, a weather pattern, etc.

Now, the basic interface to our environment contains two buttons, a Y(es) button, and a N(o) button. Before any construct is allowed to exist in the environment, every user plugged into the environment has to hit the Y button. If even one user hits the N button, then the construct doesn't exist in the environment. The whole button-pushing process is system. This same system applies to manipulating constructs that already exist in the environment.

The advanced interface to our environments contains many pairs of Y/N buttons organized in a matrix. Along one axis of the matrix is the name of each user plugged into the environment. The other axis of the matrix is a list of all potential inputs (new constructs and manipulations of existing constructs) into the environment. Each pair of buttons can be set to auto Y or auto N, or left inactive (i.e., the user has to manually decide each time that player introduces or manipulates that particular concept) At the bottom of this second axis there's a "default" row for anything that might have accidentally been left out of the list. This "default" row is equivalent to the basic interface described above.

A game text is a definition of presets for this matrix of auto Y / auto N buttons.

Now, here's where we get to stances. The reason stances are problematic is that they deal with several varied aspects of our network, but do not completely identify any of them. Instead, they combine their incomplete versions in a couple of interesting, highly visible ways.

Actor stance and Author / Pawn stance are talking about manipulation. They assume that you already have a construct in the environment that you are preparing to do something with. Specifically, they define your creative process in terms of (A) informational limitation to what your construct would be aware of if it were real, and (B) what your external inclination is, as a user. These definitions are imbalanced.

There are multiple possibilities for informational limitation - "what the construct is aware of" is one specific one. Conversely, "the external inclination of the user" is super vague. It can be many things. Each specific scheme of information limitation can theoretically be combined with each specific user inclination to form a large (limitless, maybe) set of inclination / information pairs. Right now, we have three pairs: two extreme cases (Actor / Pawn) and one combination case (Author).

Director Stance, contrastingly, is not defined in terms of "preparation to manipulate." In fact, Director stance is specifically defined in terms of constructs that are *separate* from the construct that you are manipulating. Director stance assumes that you have a construct in the environment that the other users are "auto Y for manipulation" with respect to you. That is, everyone agrees that you manipulate that construct at will.

Director stance activates an additional row of "auto Y" buttons for creating and manipulating constructs that are spatially related to your existing construct.

Director stance is incomplete in the same way that the other stances are incomplete. There are a whole bunch of "Director-like" stances that are tied to things other than a specific construct. (In fact, it's even worse than that, since Director stance is not just tied to a specific construct, but a specific *type* of construct - a character.)

So, there are Director-like stances that are tied to, say, specific items, animals, ideals, geographical features, etc. There are Director-like stances that are tied to meta-game considerations, like which player paid for the pizza, or where the players are seated at the table.

So, there are a whole lot of unexplored combinations. To summarize, existing stance theory details just a few combinations of members from potentially very large sets. It also lumps two separate sets (manipulation preparation vs. sphere of influence) into one category.

That's why I'm unhappy with the direction this thread has taken. I'm not interested in hearing Ron defend or explain the existing stances. I said up front in my first post that this thread is for pushing the envelope.

[greyorm]

Even with that explanation, I'm not convinced. At all, even. In fact, I think it's quite clearly lain out above that the whole problem here is the view that Stances are "tied" to "objects" as they are in your post above. Like I said, I wanted some clear example situations that highlight the specific problems, not a theoretical construct of "how it doesn't work." That's going to go a lot further for me than claims that the structure is flawed without test cases that illustrate the problem(s).

Also, "I think this is wrong. Discuss other options." followed by silence on your part and then "That's not the discussion I wanted, bad thread!" seems to me to be a rather bizzare attitude to have in a situation where it is you[1] that sees a problem and you that wants to expand/change/refocus the current model. It seems as though you want others to do the work here for you. If all you wanted to do was say, "Hey, this doesn't work," then you've said it. Great.

[1] (Regardless of whether "you" is a one-person, or "you" is a group-of-people.)

If you want to push the evelope, push it. Present something more complete than the existing Stances. Obviously, I'm not, because I don't think it's broken, incomplete, or vague. Ron's not going to either, because he thinks the same.

[LordSmerf]

Hmm...  I have been thinking some more about Stances.  First, let me say that as things stand Stances work.  They do what they claim to do.  At the same time, I have this feeling (whether right or wrong) that Stances could do so much more.  So, it is not that they do not do what they purport to do (that is classify actions with reference to relative Agent and Justification), but that they could be doing a lot more.  Unfortunately I am finding it incredibly difficult to articulate this nebulous feeling and thus am not sure that I am able to really present it.

One thing that might help me would be an articulation of what Stance is.  Define it, not using examples, but by itself.  As things stand my definition is (roughly):

Stances classify manipulations of the Shared Imagined Space by the Agent being manipulated in the space and the reason that Agent was manipulated in that specific manner.

Is that about right?

Thomas

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I guess that works, although it might be one of those "say it yourself" cases. My "say it myself" for Stance goes something like this:

The degree of separation between player and character necessary for a given input into the SIS, relative to that character.

So Actor Stance has the least degree of separation; the player is using only in-character perspective and only commands the character's actions in the already-agreed-upon, momentarily non-active imaginary environment.

Author Stance has the intermediate position, in which the player is using all available knowledge among himself/herself and the other participants, but still restricting imaginary action to the character's purview.

Director Stance has the highest degree of separation, in which the character's surrounding environment is what has "changed" or "done something. Since the character is not the Active Thing, but rather the object of the environment's action, character knowledge vs. player knowledge is irrelevant.

Does that help at all?

Also, it may be relevant to point out that Stance is only one of many Ephemera, and that it's possible you may be looking for (or hoping to find) some other feature of play that Stance simply isn't about.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

Now hold on there, Mr. Raven!

(/me rubs hands... wow, it's been ages since I've been able to fight with Raven. We agree way to often these days... ;p )

Also, "I think this is wrong. Discuss other options." followed by silence on your part and then "That's not the discussion I wanted, bad thread!" seems to me to be a rather bizzare attitude to have in a situation where it is you[1] that sees a problem and you that wants to expand/change/refocus the current model. It seems as though you want others to do the work here for you. If all you wanted to do was say, "Hey, this doesn't work," then you've said it. Great.

In the first place, it's not me that sees a problem and me that wants change. It's about 6 - 10 guys who asked me to get the ball rolling with this thread. I'm a busy guy lately. I don't have time to reply to every post. (Besides, didn't you read Chris's recent thread? Slow posting is good. I have *read* every post here. I just don't bang out a reply the instant some poster's comments make an emotional tug.) So, my role in this thread is basically to watch and see what comes out. What kind of new ground can we cover? New ground is not covered by posts that A) attack the validity of the thread's existence in the first place, or B) are hung up on explaining the old theory to people who don't understand it yet.

Even with that explanation, I'm not convinced. At all, even. In fact, I think it's quite clearly lain out above that the whole problem here is the view that Stances are "tied" to "objects" as they are in your post above. Like I said, I wanted some clear example situations that highlight the specific problems, not a theoretical construct of "how it doesn't work." That's going to go a lot further for me than claims that the structure is flawed without test cases that illustrate the problem(s).

If you want to push the evelope, push it. Present something more complete than the existing Stances. Obviously, I'm not, because I don't think it's broken, incomplete, or vague. Ron's not going to either, because he thinks the same.

So, read my post again. I did, in fact, present something more complete, and something new. For example, I outlined a whole bunch of Director-like stances that are not defined in relation to character.

[LordSmerf]

Hello,

I guess that works, although it might be one of those "say it yourself" cases. My "say it myself" for Stance goes something like this:

The degree of separation between player and character necessary for a given input into the SIS, relative to that character.

So Actor Stance has the least degree of separation; the player is using only in-character perspective and only commands the character's actions in the already-agreed-upon, momentarily non-active imaginary environment.

Author Stance has the intermediate position, in which the player is using all available knowledge among himself/herself and the other participants, but still restricting imaginary action to the character's purview.

Director Stance has the highest degree of separation, in which the character's surrounding environment is what has "changed" or "done something. Since the character is not the Active Thing, but rather the object of the environment's action, character knowledge vs. player knowledge is irrelevant.

Does that help at all?

Also, it may be relevant to point out that Stance is only one of many Ephemera, and that it's possible you may be looking for (or hoping to find) some other feature of play that Stance simply isn't about.

Best,
Ron

I have been thinking on this off and on since Ron provided it (thanks Ron!).  I think my problem is not in understanding Stances as they currently stand (though it is entirely possible that I do not understand).  My problem is understanding why we have decided that the current stances are adequate.  Using Ron's "degree of speration" concept, why have we decided to highlight just these three points on a continuum?  I am not entirely sure that these are intuitive break points, and I am almost positive that other equally valid breakpoints could be easily developed.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that my major problem with stances is Director Stance.  It seems that we use the term as if it was precise when it is really more of a catch-all.  So we have: "In character decisions", "Justified character decisions based on metagame knowledge", "Unjustified character decisions based on metagame knowledge", and "All that SIS stuff that is the GM's job in traditional games".  Please note that when by "unjustified" I am specifically referring to in-SIS (using character knowledge and motivation only) justification.

At the risk of shifting focus on the thread slightly (somebody smack me if I am out of line here): what other, more focused, formulations of Director Stance exist?  I have already posited the idea of an "Environmental Stance" which would be control of agents outside of the focus character using purely in-SIS justification.

Also, I guess I feel some need to clarify why I consider this important.  I am rather strongly convinced that, and my own personal experience indicates, that it is significantly easier to experiment with and manipulate an idea once you have articulated it.  So, by positing new ideas with regards to Stance, we can experiment with new variations of the three (and a half) currently recognized Stances.

Thomas

[Ron Edwards]

Oooh! New thread, Thomas, new thread!!

Can we identify meaningful and necessary distinctions among what is now called 'Director Stance'?

I totally want to see this discussed, and we need a new thread for it.

Best,
Ron