Actor and Author Stance

[Cassidy]

Taken from chapter 3 of GNS Theory

In 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.)

I'm trying to get my head around the definitions here and any insight and feedback into the differences between Actor/Author would be much appreciated.

An Actor determines their characters actions "...using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have."

OK - I can buy that. I take that definition to mean that the players actions and decisions they make for their character are based solely on what their character "knows" or "perceives" within the game. To me thats one aspect of what I understand "playing in character" to be.

An Author determines their characters actions "...based on the real person's priorities."

OK - I can buy that too. The actions and decisions that a player makes for their character are driven by their priorities. I would also infer that their priorities are (or should be) indistinguishable from their premise for playing the game in the first place.

In play some of my players "real persons priorities" focus mainly on their character within the game. Their priority is the exploration of their character and so in play their normally adopted stance would appear to fit the definition for Author stance.

At 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.

I'm willing to accept that I'm completely misreading these definitions (in fact I'm reasonably sure that I am).

If so then maybe someone could cite some simple examples or elaborate on the definitions so that I can get them straight in my own head.

[Alan]

At 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.

As I understand it, a stance is an approach to making a decision about what to declare in game.  It's defined by the scope of creative consequences the player considers.  A player can shift from one stance to another, making declarations from a different stance every time.

I think a player can run through the different stances in his mind before making a decision, but I don't think a given decision can be said to be from two stances at once.

Actor stance asks "What would my character do?"

Author stance asks "What do I want my character to do?"

Director stance asks "What do I want to happen?"

Author stance takes account of Actor stance concerns, but not just those concerns.  An Actor stance decision might be "Argula is murderously angry with Davos, so he leaves the party."  An Author stance decision would be "Argula is murderously angry, but I want him to stay with the group; so I'll come up with a reason for him to prefer staying over leaving."


- Alan

[Cassidy]

Alan, thats precisely the reply that I'm looking for, many thanks.

I know where I stand with stances now, so to speak. :)

[Valamir]

Excellent answer Alan.  That's one of the better 1 line definitions of stance I've run across.

A common example of the difference between the two stances is as follows:

Situation:  the character is a cop on a case related to a gang.  The GM knows that the gang will be engageing in some sort of illicit activity in a nearby park that night.  Through the course of previous play, the player, but not the character, also learn about this event (perhaps from overhearing the GM discussion with other players).

Actor Stance:  The character has no reason to know anything about the park or the meeting, or occassion to be there.  The player, basing his decision only upon what the character would do, has the character go home and go to bed (or to a bar, or whatever).

Author 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..."

Obviously for some forms of play Author stance such as this is strictly forbidden.  For other styles it is both welcomed and encouraged.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

One of the most difficult aspects of Author Stance is something I'm beginning to think of as "submissive" behavior by players regarding what they perceive as the GM's plans.

A little while ago, I had occasion to play Sorcerer with three folks who'd never played with one another or me before. Everyone was excited about it, and we'd discussed some of the privileges or weirdnesses of playing the game that aren't immediately apparent from its text.

I felt no need to "bring the characters together," as there was plenty of shared meat among their back-stories and the scenario. One player, however, apparently felt the need to engineer this event - he suggested, early and often, that the player-characters run into one another.

Now, my usual approach in play is "never argue with the word of God," which is to say, if a player obviously wants something to happen very badly, I accomodate it (that is to say, in terms of who goes where when and stuff like that, not resolution rolls). But in this case, the in-game justification was extremely contrived, and my reading of the situation was that the player was not acting out of "this will be cool or good" or similar, but because he was trying to help me get "my" story under way.

It's clear what generates this behavior: hours (and years) of experience in games when the GM is running a "Panama-canal" style scenario in which the player-characters all need to be together and to know X for "the story" to occur, but the GM starts them all widely separated. In such a scenario, the players are frustrated because they keep wandering and trying stuff, but nothing happens, and the GM is frustrated because "his story" never gets going.

My point: Author Stance operates within limits of in-story plausibility. However, that sentence needs exposition: in-story plausibility operates within the need to discover, express, intensify, and resolve Narrativist Premise. [Note: this whole post and this paragraph in particular assumes Narrativist play priorities.]

By the way, in the game in question, I think it's interesting and very significant that the player in question was assured by the other players, not by me, that it was OK not to "join up" through dubious coincidences, at least not until we all had a better idea of the driving passions of one another's characters. In other words, I think people in general have a very good intuitive feel for when coincidence, in stories, is at the service of the Premise as opposed to being "corralling" or contrived.

Enlisting that shared feel or standard into the game - up to and including player-input to the GM - is a very powerful shared skill.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

This is why the term Pawn stance can be so helpful in understanding Author stance. Pawn stance is that stance where the player not only prioritizes his own desires, but fails to make any account for them in the context of play. To follow up on Ralph's example:

Author 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..."

Pawn stance would just be: 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.

Note the lack of retroactive assignation of reason. This makes the character very similar to a pawn in a boardgame, where no attempt is ever made to justify the player's choices. Hence the title. What Ron wanted in his game (which I believe I participated in) was more Author stance, but the player was employing more Pawn stance. Again, as Ron points out, likely as a result of prior training.

Mike

[joe_llama]

I always imagined Stances as different types of computer gaming perspectives:

Actor Stance is '1st-person perspective' where all you see comes from the eyes of your character.

Author Stance is '3rd-person perspective' where you also care about how you look/behave in regard to your environment.

Director Stance is 'Top-down view' where your perceptions are primarily 'strategic' (not in the wargming way but in comparison to the other perspectives).

That's how I see it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, folks.

With respect,

Joe Llama

[Cassidy]

Just to see if I've got this right, how's this for an example?

Tyrus 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?

Actor stance:
"Tyrus, will defend the children, even at risk to his own life, if the Brigands want the children then they'll have to do it over his dead body."

The player knows that Tyrus would not jeapordise the safety of the children in any way.

Author stance (may also in this instance be perceived by the GM as actor stance though):
"Tyrus will attack the leader figuring that if he can take him out the rest of the Brigands will back off."

The player wants to get some XPs for killing the Brigands even though he suspects that doing so is likely to leave the children vulnerable. It doesn't matter though because the player believes that he's probably going to get more XPs for killing the Brigands than saving the children.

Pawn stance:
"Tyrus will attack the Brigands. By the way how many XPs do I need to get to next level?."

Yep! He's attacking because he's after the XPs. The player is making Tyrus act based on the players own priorities for game advancement of his character and not for any particular motivation that Tyrus's as a character may have.

Director stance:
"Tyrus will defend the children as best he can. He manages to dispatch one of the Brigands with ease but the leader grabs one of the children and puts his sword to her throat."

The player believes that having one of the Brigands directly threaten the life of of the children would make for a more dramatic scene and present Tyrus (and the other characters) with a morale dilemma.

[Valamir]

yes, but.

The examples you provide all focus on the player choosing not to act in actor stance because of the possibility of being rewarded with XPs.

That may well be a very gamist reason for choosing the other stances, but is certainly not the only reason.  As long as you keep in mind that the perceived benefit for acting out of character doesn't necessarily have anything to do with XPs or the like (it may just be because the story would be much "cooler" that way) I think you've got it.

[Cassidy]

You're right of course Valamir. I only used the example that I did (with XPs, obviously gamist) because I figured that it's one we've all come across at one time or another.

Actor stance: "Tyrus will attack the leader figuring that if he can take him out the rest of the Brigands will back off."

The decision of the player to have Tyrus act is this way could have been because...

...the player just wants to see some action and is a little bored.

... the player wants to wind up this scene quickly since he's got to pick his girlfriend up.

...the player really wants to see if Tyrus can take these guys out.

...the player is tired of the other players saying Tyrus is a boring old fart who's really a waste of time in combat situations.

...the player is trying to second guess the GM and expects that Tyrus may get beat up a little and captured. A turn of events that the player thinks might make for an interesting twist in the story.

...or really any other reason which is specifically motivated by the players own personal priorities, independant of their characters priorities within the game.

[Mike Holmes]

Right.

What's worse, however, is that a specific act may not be distinguishable as Actor, Author, or Pawn. Not knowing how the player was addressig the character, Tyrus could attack the brigands for any of the reasons you had, and (as you noted) nobody, not even the player maing the decision at times, will be the wiser as to what stance was used.

Director stance, OTOH, is pretty detectable, as it involves changing the action through something other than the character, usually.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

To 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.

Best,
Ron

[Cassidy]

To 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.

Agreed.

Tell me, when in Author stance what is the best approach to take if a players stated action for their character is, and I don't know the best phrase for this other than to say, "out of character".

Taking 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 flees
Why? 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?

[Andrew Martin]

Taking 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 flees
Why? 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?

I'd suggest that the rules system doesn't support the character being heroic and gallant. After all, if the rules system supported the character description, then it would be illogical for the player to have Tyrus retreat.

In most RPGs my group have played, seemingly illogical, cowardly and stupid decisions can usually be tracked down to the game system rewarding the illogical, cowardly and stupid action.

The best remedy is not to punish the player (as they're only obeying the effective rules of the game), but instead to alter or replace the game rules so as to reward desired character action. Once that's done, heroic characters will behave heroically, because heroism is rewarded by the game.

[Valamir]

Excellent excellent point Andrew.  I was musing over how to respond to that question but I think you hit the biggest thing.   If a character is meant to be heroic (where heroic is defined is reckless with personal safty in the name of a good cause) than the game system needs to have mechanisms in place that reward the character and/or player for behaving this way...or at the very least remove obstacles with discourage it.

This is because the value system represented by a paper character's beliefs cannot be 1:1 mapped to the player.  

Consider:  The CHARACTER knows he is taking great risk with his personal saftey for the lives of the children...and the CHARACTER feels that saving the children are WORTH THE RISK.  

However, the PLAYER clearly does not.  There is a disconnect between the two value systems.  One could argue that this is "bad roleplaying" on the part of the player, but what's the point of forcing the player to play in a manner he doesn't enjoy.  The key is to make the player make the same KIND of decisions that the character would...even if its not for the same reason.

If acting heroically would gain the player Drama Dice (as in 7th Sea) for instance the PLAYER might then decide...no the children aren't worth the risk...but the Drama Die IS.  By this method you preserve the thought process...both character and player are united in the belief that staying and fighting is worth more than running away, even though the motivation is different.

There are many possible substitutes for Drama Dice as a reward mechanism of course.