Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Cassidy, November 03, 2002, 08:29:42 AM
QuoteIn Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)
Quote from: CassidyAt the same time though the decisions or actions their characters perform are almost always based solely on their characters knowledge and perceptions within the game. That being the case they would also appear to be adopting an Actor stance.Given the definitions for Actor/Author stance it seems appear possible that at a given point during play a player could be considered to be adopting both stances simultaneously.
QuoteAuthor Stance: The character doesn't know about the park or the meeting, but the player does. The player wants the character to go to the park and "stumble into" the situation with the gang, thereby moving forward with the case. The player then retro engineers a justification along the lines of "my character would normally be at home in bed after pulling a double shift, but he just can't sleep for thinking about this case so he decides to go for a walk to clear his head. While walking off his insomnia he winds up strolling through the nearby park..."
QuoteTyrus is helping defend a group of villagers from a band of Brigands who are in the process of sacking their village. Their obvious intent is to kill the men and take the women and children with intent of selling them into a life of slavery.In a bloody exchange the villagers feeble attempts to defend themselves result in a rout. In the confusion Tyrus (one of our main protagonists) finds himself fleeing the village with three young children in tow.Before Tyrus can make good his escape though he finds his path blocked by three of the Brigands.Swords drawn they advance.What are you going to do Tyrus?
Quote from: Ron EdwardsTo expand on Mike's point a little, Stances other than Director are usually discernable over the course of a few actions (rather than a single one), especially in combination with the real person commenting on and participating in actions by other players' characters.
Quote from: CassidyTaking the example of Tyrus and the Brigands again and assume that the player has previously written Tyrus up in such a way as to suggest that he is a heroic and gallant figure in the best sense of the word.Tyrus fleesWhy? Because the player doesn't want Tyrus to get killed.GM: "You're leaving the children behind?"Player: They're young, they'll get over it.GM: Errrr.If the player is playing from a gamist standpoint then they may rationalise Tyrus's action as a 'tactical withdrawl'. It's a game, the player can't win or even compete if his main character is dead, ergo in the players mind retreat is a viable option.What if though the game is structured to encourage a predominantly simulationist style of play?Tyrus's action would suggest that the player really isn't too interested in playing that way and their action in this case would diminish the underlying premise of the game that the GM is trying to maintain, (i.e. a simulationist premise).Would you as a GM "step in" and question the players action?