Stance as Credibility Distribution

[M. J. Young]

Thanks for all the input. I'm chewing on it.

You're implying that Pawn, Actor and Author stances are judged from the outside, rather than the inside? That it's the other people around the table, and their judgment of what is credible, that determines what stance the player is in?

I had not considered it quite thus, but from a certain point of view that's correct. On the other hand, that's undoubtedly correct about stance anyway. Stance is only partly that over which we assume control; it's also that over which we are recognized as doing so appropriately within the group. We already know that stance is something agreed under the social contract (even if not specified as such), and that unspoke disagreements concerning stance can create dysfunction in a group (because "he doesn't play right"). So I'd say it has both the inside and outside aspects: what do I assert as the limits of my credibility, and what does the rest of the group permit me to assert?

Good point, though.

I can act in director stance one moment (my walks over to the dresser - which didn't previously exist), than switch to actor the next (but when my guy finds a diary, he leaves it -- 'cause my character wouldn't do that). But isn't credibility something that remains more or less constant throughout the entire game? I mean, it seems funny that credibility might change back and forth so much.

My understanding of director stance (as someone has already indicated) is that it potentially includes actor stance. That is, if I say "my character wouldn't do that" I as acting within the bounds of actor stance, but I'm not really outside the bounds of any other stance, either. As director or author I can assert that this character must act this way because I want him to remain in character as previously established. Even if I'm in pawn stance I can make a choice which I base on my desire to have the character act in character in this instance.

It's been said that it's possible that you can have a version of director stance which does not include a relationship to any specific character or characters, and although I'm not certain the LARP example demonstrates this (given that the actions of off screen characters can be so determined) I don't think it disproves the case. All that's necessary for director stance to include the in-character actions of characters is that the person in director stance be permitted to base character choices on character values for those characters over which he does have control, if any. A person in pawn stance need not provide any reason or logic for the actions of his character that makes sense within the game, but this does not mean he may not do so--only that it isn't necessary for the action to be credible. Thus in pawn stance, we could say, "My character is going to punch the king in the nose because that's what I want him to do right now" and we could equally say "My character is going to punch the king in the nose because he thinks he can get away with it and he's really angry at that last statement." The action is credible whether or not the reason is stated; the reason is optional, but its presence does not necessarily mean the player has moved to actor or author stance--it only means that in this case he offered a reason for his decision which was based on what he wants to identify as character motivations.

Director stance only requires that the credibility of the participant extends beyond the ordinary control of a character assigned to that participant. It does not mean that the participant cannot control the character.

There's obviously some sort of relationship between credibility and stance, but as Ron stated, stance is an aspect of Ephemera, while credibility is a Social Contract issue (right?).

Yes, but being ephemera makes it part of the social contract in the same way that being a statement about bats makes something a statement about animals: all ephemera are contained within the social contract.

From this perspective (and I'm clarifying my own thoughts with this) "stance" as ephemera would be specific structures which shape credibility. That's nothing new in general--all ephemera are specific structures which shape credibility, whether we mean rolling dice or consulting books or using scores from character papers. I'm not sure it's ever been said quite that way before, but it's pretty obvious that this is how Vincent understands these concepts, and it's the way I see them, and no one whose credibility I particularly respect on the nature of the theory has said anything that I would understand as disagreeing with this.

Speaking of Vincent, I'm a bit uncertain of a turn of a phrase.

Credibility granted.

I may be picking at nits here, but I think I'd have said "Credibility recognized." My distinction is that the player had the credibility prior to making the statement as part of the existing social contract. He made the statement believing it was within the bounds of his credibility. Its acceptance by others indicates not that they are now granting him the credibility to make that statement, but rather that they are recognizing that such credibility was already granted to him in the social contract.

I'll concede that there might be points in play at which new credibility bounds are extended as part of the ongoing negotiation of the social contract, but I believe the majority of such statements are accepted based on existing credibility.

Otherwise I fully concur.

So the apportionment of credibility is a social contract issue, but techniques and ephemera serve as methods for apportioning credibility.

Thanks for the input. Any other thoughts?

--M. J. Young