News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Director Stance (more) (split)

Started by LordSmerf, October 20, 2004, 10:13:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

WiredNavi

QuoteYou seem to be making some semantic argument, but the distinction between character, and not character (but part of the SIS), is a very simple and easy concept to understand. So, is it merely the wording of the definition that bothers you, or is there some real problem with how the term works?

I suppose it is a semantic argument, but I'm trying to keep it out of simple wording disputes.  I have a problem with the definition of Stance vs. the distinction between Actor and Director Stance.  Please bear with me - I'm really not trying to be deliberately obtuse or play with words in an attempt to look smart.

The Glossary definition of Stance is: 'The cognitive position of a person to a fictional character.'  My earlier post was trying to figure out what that meant.  From my understanding though - and this is one place I may well be wrong - Stance has nothing to do with authority over the SIS.

The only difference I see between Actor and Director Stance save for the authority the player is given in each case.  I don't deny that they are different things, but I don't think that they are different Stances.  They seem to me to be the same Stance with different levels of authority to affect the SIS (one with only the authority to dictate character actions, the other with the authority to dictate other things as well).

So either:
- I don't understand what Stance means.
- I don't understand the difference between Actor and Director Stance.
- The definition of Stance needs to be changed.
- The definitions of Actor and/or Director Stance need to be changed.
- Something I am totally not considering.
- Any or all of the above.

Which one is the problem?
Dave R.

"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness."  -- Terry Pratchett, 'Men At Arms'

Mike Holmes

Oh, no, not the "social stance" again. Aiiiieeeee!

While we're at it, let's mention again that "audience" is not a stance by this definition, because it's not about making decisions.


You can ascribe goal and "layers" and whatever you want to stance in order to make it non-functional. Stance doesn't say any of that, and works fine as it is.

Its like you've said, Lighbulbs can't give off light because light doesn't have a purpose, and lightbulbs seem purposeful.

Are there things that are done in RPGs outside of stance? Sure. Lots of activities that are only social, or non SIS oriented. But as soon as the intent is to affect the SIS, we can attatch a stance to how the player was looking at doing it. Did he ask the GM to put something in? Then, from one perspective, he's not affecting the SIS, the GM is. From another, if he's asking that the GM change something outside the character, from an outside the character POV, then it's director stance.

Put another way, what does, "uncovering" any of these things as "new" do for the model? What usefulness does it have (oh, I can sense Chris breathing down my neck even as I type that)? As it stands, I use the stance model all the time to talk about how players were making decisions, and the subject of how they obtained the authority to do so, etc. Where's the functionality? It's a model, sans functionality to say something about play, what's the point?

Mike
Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.

LordSmerf

Quote from: Mike HolmesPut another way, what does, "uncovering" any of these things as "new" do for the model? What usefulness does it have (oh, I can sense Chris breathing down my neck even as I type that)? As it stands, I use the stance model all the time to talk about how players were making decisions, and the subject of how they obtained the authority to do so, etc. Where's the functionality? It's a model, sans functionality to say something about play, what's the point?

Mike

Mike, for me this is the crux of the entire issue.  I feel, not that current Stance theory is not useful, but that current Stance theory is incomplete or inaccurate.  So, once again, I feel that current Stance theory is useful.  In fact it is probably incredibly useful.  The problem is that it seems... well... that's the problem.  I can not seem to put my finger on exactly what bothers me about it which is why I keep asking the same questions over and over.

So it seems to me that Stances as they stand are a sort of cobbled-together affair.  They work, they do what they are supposed to do, but they do not do it as well as they could...

Again, my feelings are all nebulous intuition, so I may just be wrong, but that's how I feel about it.

Thomas
Current projects: Caper, Trust and Betrayal, The Suburban Crucible

Marhault

Postulate:  It is impossible to impact the SIS without employing one or more of the stances.
I'm curious to see if anyone agrees with that.  I'm pretty sure it's true, but am interested in hearing what the rest of you think.  I've been thinking about stances all day, and that's one of the conclusions I've come to.

That being said, I think there is something that needs to be tweaked about Director Stance.  Let me see if I can iron it out.

The current stances measure two things, the agent through which you effect the SIS, and the rationale you employ to justify that effect.  Let's assume for the moment, and for the sake of simplicity, that the acting player has the authority (implicit or explicit) to perform the action in question.

Actor Stance:  Agent = specific character, Rationale = in game causality
Author Stance:  Agent = specific character, Rationale = player desires (justified by in game causality after the fact)
Pawn Stance:  Agent = specific character, Rationale = player desires
Director Stance:  Agent = anything other than specific character (including multiple agents), Rationale = any

Thomas is right, one of these things is not like the others.  Director Stance doesn't really define Rationale.  It is essentially made up of separate instances of the other stances, which get lumped into Director Stance because the Agent is not the acting character.  I wrote up a long example to show this, but I don't think it's really necessary.

Perhaps we should break down Director Stance into 3 (probably 3, anyway) types corresponding to the 3 specific character stances, based on the rationale for the action?

Valamir

A veritable rash of Stance threads.

I have to admit to being completely puzzled by the confusion.  Stance seems to me to be one of the clearest and easiest to grasp aspects of the model we have.

You have 3 elements to work with 1)  A character (any character yours, mine, the GMs,  2) The environment (anything that isn't a character), 3) the player (including GM).

A player can do one of 2 things:  manipulate a character with respect to the environment or manipulate the environment with respect to a character.

A player can have one of 2 relationships with the character while he is doing these things:  within the character attempting to determine and base decisions on what the given character would do if they were real people in a real situation based on the character's goals, or without the character attempting to determine what they the player want to do based on the player's goals.


So you have essentially 2 axes which can be tabulated into a 4 box grid.

Manipulate Character and Manipulate Environment vs.
Based on Character Goals and Based on Player Goals.


If you are manipulating a character based on character goals you are in Actor Stance.

If you are manipulating a character based on player goals you are in Author Stance.

If you are manipulating the environment based on player goals you are in Director Stance.  The Environment is moving around the character in a manner the character did not cause.


"But Ralph, what about that fourth box...Manipulating the environment based on character goals...what goes in there?"

Simple...nothing.

That box definitionally cannot exist.  It is the junction of manipulating the environment in a manner the character did not cause while operating solely within the goals and capabilities of the character.  They are mutually exclusive and can't happen.


However...we can get CLOSE to that box.  There were a few older discussions on the role of Magic in traditional fantasy RPGs (particularly with respect to AD&D and the dungeon crawl).  Magic in those games represented the closest thing to Director Stance you could get in Old School roleplaying...the ability to manipulate the environment in a manner outside of a normal person's ability to do so.  Of course, since Magic-Users are not normal persons the ability to do magic is within their capability so the actual use of magic is still Actor or Author Stance...BUT you can see how its similiar (and often used to similar effect).


Now, there seems to be some problem with having two different axes being discussed under the label of Stance.  I can relate to that.  For a long time Director Stance was referred to as Directoral Power and generally kept seperate from Author and Actor until general useage began to blur the distinction.

So one could say (and its been said before) that Director Power is seperate from Author and Actor.  That you can have Actor with or without Director Power or Author with or without Director Power.

Lo and behold...that relationship winds up being exactly the same 4 boxes I outlined above.  And since Actor Stance with Director Power can not exist, you wind up having only 3 possible conditions.

Actor Stance, Author Stance, or Author Stance with Director Power.

What's really the problem then with simplifying things and renaming "Author Stance with Director Power" simply as "Director Stance"?

Seems pretty straightforward to me...

LordSmerf

The more I think on Stances the more my problem seems to clarify itself.  At the moment I think that my problem centers upon the fact that it is difficult (if not impossible) to provide a clear definition of Stances without defining the three stances.  This seems tautological.  We basically say "the three Stances are what Stances are", or at least I get that impression.

Again, I do not feel that I have a problem using or understanding Stances, and I feel that they are quite useful.  I almost feel about Stances as Ron felt about Gamism when he wrote the Step On Up essay (i.e. we all think we know what they are, and no one ever talks about it much, we just use the term) with the exception that we use Stances in a pretty standardized manner.  Now, it is possible that all this has been hashed out to pretty much everyone's satisfaction and thus it is not a case of no one ever discussing it, but just that everyone has discussed as much as they feel necessary.

At the risk of drifting off topic a bit, Ralph how would you respond to the idea of manipulating the environment with respect to the character based on causal goals.  That is, sure the environment effects the character, but the reason you are manipulating it is to maintain environmental causality.  It could be argued that maintaining causality is just another player goal, but then we could toss out Actor Stance and say that being "in character" is just another player goal, which seems kind of silly.  If the discussion of my postulated fourth "Environmental Stance" starts to head somewhere I will probably take it to a new thread.

So again: My problem is not with understanding what current Stance theory is (at least not after all this discusison of it).  Instead my problem is tied to the idea that Stance can not be defined except by its members.  It is not an idea on its own, it is instead a grouping label.  Now grouping labels are useful, but I feel that we could do more with Stances if we knew what a Stance was apart from "Stance is one of these three things".

Thomas
Current projects: Caper, Trust and Betrayal, The Suburban Crucible

timfire

What seems to be going on to me is that different people have a different understanding on what stances are, or at least, what stances should be.

Ron's (& other's) definition is based around the characters. How does the player effect the characters and how does he make that decision? Using this viewpoint, the definition of stances as-is is complete.

Thomas' (& other's) seems not to be based around the character. That is to say, Thomas seems to think that stances answer the question of how/why do players make decisions & how do they affect the SIS in general. From this viewpoint, stances either need some sort of re-structuring, or at least they need Ralph's fourth box (internal-logic + environment).

To me, those just seem to be different ways of looking at the same phenomonon. Both seem valid in their own way. The question is, which way of looking at things is more useful?

[edit] Cross-posted with Thomas. [/edit]
--Timothy Walters Kleinert

Ron Edwards

Hello,

Tim, the way I see it is that we have two obvious and clear levels of dealing with the SIS.

One, the biggest and overall, has no specific set of terms associated with it beyond words like "play" or "input" or "saying stuff."

Two, the one which Stances are about, concerns the positioning and announcements of characters within the SIS. Key point: this is contained within the #1 category above; it is a subset of it.

People seem absolutely determined to make Stances apply to the larger #1 category. They are hunting for a set of terms to describe what *role-playing* is, at the Ephemeral level, in a way which cuts all the way up to Exploration/SIS in general.

I don't really see much need for that. Phrases like "Bob says," or "Suzy suggests," or "We play that ..." all work for me, at the level of #1.

I really wish people wouldn't fixate on the poor little (and perfectly adequate to its scope) concept of Stance and try to beef it up into the rubric for role-playing input of all kinds. It only seems to lead to pain and suffering.

Best,
Ron

Valamir

QuoteAt the risk of drifting off topic a bit, Ralph how would you respond to the idea of manipulating the environment with respect to the character based on causal goals. That is, sure the environment effects the character, but the reason you are manipulating it is to maintain environmental causality. It could be argued that maintaining causality is just another player goal, but then we could toss out Actor Stance and say that being "in character" is just another player goal, which seems kind of silly. If the discussion of my postulated fourth "Environmental Stance" starts to head somewhere I will probably take it to a new thread.


Actor Stance is entirely distinct and seperate from the notion of being "in character".  You can be 100% "in character" and be playing Author stance the whole way.  You can be completely immersed in your character and be using Actor Stance.  Or you can be using Actor Stance with little immersion beyond the minimum needed to grok who the character is.  There is a fair degree of correlation between Actor Stance and "in character" but don't mistake that for causation.  

There is absolutely zero element of "why" inherent in the Stances.  To Ron's point above I find it very counter productive to try and duplicate at the stance level all of the various inputs and ramifications that are discussed at the other level of the model.  Stances are not a model of roleplaying.  You can not learn the sum total of a player's roleplaying habits based on what stance they're in.

What I mean by this, is that your question above is really pretty immaterial to the idea of Stances.  Did the player manipulate the environment...yes...then they were engaged in Director Stance.  Why the player manipulated the environment doesn't factor in to Stances at all.

It doesn't matter if he did it to maintain internal causality.  It doesn't matter if he did it in order to force an explosive situation to a dramatic climax.  It doesn't matter if he did it to torque his buddy off across the table.  It doesn't matter if he did it to impress the cute girl with how clever he is.  All of these are examples of using Director Stance in pursuit of a player goal.

To delve deeper into what those goals are and how Director Stance might be used differently as a reult you need to go back up the model and start looking at Creative Agenda and Social Contract.  Is Director Stance in pursuit of a Narrativist CA going to appear different than Director Stance in pursuit of a Gamist CA?  Yup.  But they're still both Director Stance.

Shreyas Sampat

Well, bloody hell then.

Let's just ignore the term Stance, then, and fix on the point that Thomas, in Ron's characterization, is more interested in. It's my opinion that this isn't a split topic; I'm just recommending a change in terminology to appease those of us with jargon inertia issues.

Stances describe only a subset of ephemera! But in doing so, they use only a subset of the conceptual spaces that they define with the distinctions that they make. Are the ephemera described by the missing recombinations of these categories exhaustive, or do they also proscribe a subset of ephemera? If so, what characterizes them on the whole?

M. J. Young

I am hesitant as to whether it would be better to start a new thread and increase the sheer number of stance threads running at the moment, or post here and risk derailing the direction some people want this thread to take. I'm going to post here, and if the moderators think this is something different, they can split it.

Quote from: Ralph"But Ralph, what about that fourth box...Manipulating the environment based on character goals...what goes in there?"

Simple...nothing.

That box definitionally cannot exist.  It is the junction of manipulating the environment in a manner the character did not cause while operating solely within the goals and capabilities of the character.  They are mutually exclusive and can't happen.
I'm going to pose a hypothetical.

In this game, there is a mechanic which allows any player to manipulate the world in favor of his character; that is, for example, on the right roll, or with the right card, or something of that sort, the player can say, the bus arrives at this moment, and I board it, escaping the pursuers.

O.K., that's obviously director stance; the player is exercising authority over events beyond his character's control to have what he wants to happen, which is also what his character wants, because their interests coincide.

However, I postulate that this mechanic also works for the antagonists, and the referee in this game is required to use it in such a fashion that he is obliged to control events outside the control of the characters in a manner which favors what the character would want, even if that is contrary to what he as a player wants.

According to your analysis, that should be the fourth box. That is the player acting to control events beyond the character's ability to control based on the character's desires.

Now, I have no problem with calling that director stance; but I do see this as an example of the confusion people are citing here. How would you treat it, Ralph? I presume Ron would call it director stance, and that's what I would call it. Anyone else have a different position on this?

--M. J. Young

Paganini

And... I don't see the problem in seeing a problem. :)

Quote from: ValamirWhat I mean by this, is that your question above is really pretty immaterial to the idea of Stances.  Did the player manipulate the environment...yes...then they were engaged in Director Stance.  Why the player manipulated the environment doesn't factor in to Stances at all.

Quote
A player can do one of 2 things: manipulate a character with respect to the environment or manipulate the environment with respect to a character.

And this is the problem. The requirement that the environment be manipulated with respect to a character is a false one. It is an arbitrary requirement. It is also a non-functioning requirement. Director stance can not be defined in terms of character, because Director stance has no relationship to character! Director stance is about manipulating the environment. Characters are not manipulated, and as such, the presence or absence of characters is totally incidental. They can be there, or they can not. Either way, with Director stance, the environment is manipulated.

In fact, the general "environmental manipulative authority" that GMs traditionally have are usually called "director stance," regardless of characters. In fact, you can play Universalis for a *long time* without creating any characters at all, and still be manipulating the environment. People call this "director stance."

Director stance is a fundamentally different animal from Actor / Author / Pawn stance. Director stance is about what gets manipulated. In A/A/P stance, it's a given that character is manipulated. A/A/P stance is about what thought process the player uses to decide *how* to manipulate the character.

If director stance is a stance, then A/A/P stance is not. If If A/A/P stance is a stance, the Director stance is not. Ron has said that the stances deal with ephemera, and that is true. But they're two different *kinds* of ephimera that have been lumped into one label.

Valamir

Quote from: MJHowever, I postulate that this mechanic also works for the antagonists, and the referee in this game is required to use it in such a fashion that he is obliged to control events outside the control of the characters in a manner which favors what the character would want, even if that is contrary to what he as a player wants.

According to your analysis, that should be the fourth box. That is the player acting to control events beyond the character's ability to control based on the character's desires.

Now, I have no problem with calling that director stance; but I do see this as an example of the confusion people are citing here. How would you treat it, Ralph? I presume Ron would call it director stance, and that's what I would call it. Anyone else have a different position on this?


The situation you propose is completely impossible.  There is no humanly possible way barring mind control lasers, demonic possession, or severe mental disorder for the GM to use this mechanic and not want to use it.

He may not like it.  He may not enjoy it.  He may prefer to not do it.  But if he wants to play the game by the rules, and that's the rule...then he is intentionally and knowingly using the mechanic.  I don't see reason to get hung up on the semantics of "want".

I don't "want" to jump your cunningly placed pawn with my king and set you up for a double jump.  But if I "want" to continue to play checkers with you, I have to do it.  Therefor I want to make that move as part and parcel of my want to play the game.





Quote
If director stance is a stance, then A/A/P stance is not. If If A/A/P stance is a stance, the Director stance is not. Ron has said that the stances deal with ephemera, and that is true. But they're two different *kinds* of ephimera that have been lumped into one label.

So what?

Seriously, and with no snarkiness at all...so what?

I think I've already addressed this above when I mentioned that it used to be seperate and was called Directoral Power rather than Directoral Stance.

Author Stance Plus Directoral Power = Director Stance.

I'm quite happy simply calling it Director Stance and saving the extra words in the same way I'm quite happy calling a game "Narrativist" rather than "a game which facilitates, blah blah blah".

I'm failing to see where this is an obstacle to any application of theory, or a hindrance to futher development in any way.

If you can show me the big step forward that splitting these apart will accomplish I'm all ears.

But it seems an awfully trivial thing to be worried about to me.

Paganini

Quote from: Valamir
So what?

I'm failing to see where this is an obstacle to any application of theory, or a hindrance to futher development in any way.

So, it's not an obstacle. But it is an inconsistency - hence, a confusion generator. Furthermore, it is an imprecision, or... well, maybe incompletion is a better word.

Basically, there are a lot of different *kinds* of director stance lumped into one catchall expression. In terms of design, there are a lot of specific ways to use Director stance that are drastically different. Playing Universalis (where you can do whatever you want to the environment, as long as it doesn't step on anybody's toes) is a lot different from playing TROS (where you're limited to a specific currency that can only be used to manipulate things that directly affect the situation of your character).

I think that the TROS style Director stance is closer to the actual definition of Director stance give in the Glossary. But I think Uni "free for all" type stuff is still Director stance. And I think there are a lot of interesting degrees. MoVs in the Pool for example.

Your classification of "author stance with director power" doesn't work, because Author Stance is not required. You don't even have to have character's present. Frex, I was outlining a game idea in #indierpgs last week where each player is in charge of some aspect of the environment. The specific spheres or influence would be determined at the start of each session by dealing out a deck of cards. The guy who got the "weather" card is responsible for framing the weather in scenes, and so on.

WiredNavi

QuoteNow, there seems to be some problem with having two different axes being discussed under the label of Stance. I can relate to that. For a long time Director Stance was referred to as Directoral Power and generally kept seperate from Author and Actor until general useage began to blur the distinction.

Thank you, Ralph.  This is exactly where I've been getting confused and a bit frustrated, because it seemed as though no one wanted to acknowledge the distinction between 'Director Power' and 'Stances' in general.  If it's just a general useage convention, I understand.  If not, I still don't see why the 'with or without Director Power' is part of the definition of Stances.

I wouldn't keep making an issue of this if I didn't think that it led to problems when people try to conceptualize about Stances.
Dave R.

"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness."  -- Terry Pratchett, 'Men At Arms'