The Case for 4 Stances

[Mike Holmes]

Fang is correct. Either the power is metagame (as it's described in Universalis), in which case it's use to do things outside the character is Director stance, or the power simulates the in-game entity's power in some way (as in your interesting idea), which makes it's use Author stance.

That's a clear distinction. All Director stance decisions are made employing powers that are metagame. If the power is defined as belonging to the character, it's some other stance.

Mike

[Jonathan Walton]

So, what people are basically saying is that IC-manipulation of anything, including metagame attributes, is still Actor Stance?  This may be what I wasn't fully understanding earlier, which is the cause of all this mess.

If Bob's character, Bobatar, says "Ha!  I will use my magical might to affect the very powers that control our world!" and forces the players to switch from D20 to Fudge mechanics, is that still Actor Stance?  If so, then I guess I'm completely barking up the wrong tree, like Ron said.  

Still, if the Actor/Director distinction is merely based on IC/OOC voice, I think it begins to break down given extreme situations like the ones I'm describing.  That's fine.  There's nothing wrong with that.  Most theories break down when pushed, and I was definitely trying to push this one.

It just means I might have to come up with a new vocabulary to make clear distictions between various levels of story-within-a-story stuff that I'm trying to do.  I was hoping to use the GNS Stances because I like them (well, what I understand of them) and because they are already in use here, so I wouldn't have to introduce new terms.

Sigh.  I'll go put my nose to the grindstone and go read Ron's essay again.  It seems that it still hasn't sunk in like it's supposed to.  My turn to bang my head against the wall, I guess.

Thanks for your help.

Later.
Jonathan

[Ron Edwards]

Jonathan,

You have confused me greatly. What is all this about in-character vs. out-of-character? Really, that issue is totally off the beam regarding Stance.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

A metagame power is one which the player has, but the character does not. Nobody in the game world would say that a particular character has Hero Points as described in most games. They might say he was heroic, and that might be represented by the Hero points in effect, but nobody believes that they are a character in a game with such meta-abilities.

Except possibly in your game. But all that you have done is to establish a new meta-level. Meta-meta-game, if you will (with our universe being the meta-meta level, and the first meta-level being in-game, essentially). The meta-game that is actually played in-game is Author stance, as it represents an in-game decision of the actual player regarding the character one level below the "outer-most meta-layer" of play. It's only when it's a purely player decision that it's truely meta-game, and therefore Director stance.

That's a tangle. Does it help?

Mike

[Jonathan Walton]

You have confused me greatly.

Not as much as I've confused myself, apparently.  I must be totally misinterpreting what you said.  Argh!  And I don't even know what my confusion is stemming from anymore...

If I'm playing Mercury, I'm playing Mercury. The (in-game) character's (in-game) powers includes affecting the (in-game) world drastically. I don't care what Mercury does; whenever I say he does something, I'm in Actor or Author stance.

So I was asking about the (in-game) character's (in-game/out-of-game) powers to affect the (out-of-game) actual game situation.  Fang would probably argue that this doesn't exist, i.e. that anything that happens out-of-game is no longer something the character made happen, even if the players are "obeying the character's will."

Ignore my IC/OOC confusion for now (I'll go reread your essay, which should hopefully clear up the way I'm connecting IC/OOC stuff with Stances).  What do you think of the Bob/Bobatar example?

Later.
Jonathan

[Walt Freitag]

So, what people are basically saying is that IC-manipulation of anything, including metagame attributes, is still Actor Stance?

Not quite. IC manipulation of anything is still Actor Stance, but manipulation of metagame attributes cannot ever be IC. That's what makes them metagame attributes in the first place.

This can be confusing when there are multiple "levels of reality" involved, but it doesn't actually break down.

For example, suppose I'm playing a character in a Star Trek RPG named Lt. Forge, and that character goes into the Holodeck and starts playing Sherlock Holmes in a Victorian mystery scenario.

I say, "Computer, freeze program. Change the weather to fair. Resume program." It's clear (since there's no voice-activated computer in the room where the game is taking place) that I'm speaking in character as Lt. Forge. So this action (speech) is:

- Actor stance for me. (because it's IC for Lt. Forge)
- a fictional Director stance for the fictional Lt. Forge playing a game in the Holodeck within the fictional Star Trek "reality." (because it's OOC for Sherlock Holmes and not within Sherlock Homles' volition)
- not a stance at all for Sherlock Holmes.

Now I say, "Come, Watson. The game's afoot!" It's clear (since there's no one named Watson in the room) that I'm speaking in character as Lt. Forge, who's speaking in character as Sherlock Holmes. So this action (speech) is:

- Actor stance for me. (because it's IC for Lt. Forge)
- A fictional Actor stance for the fictional Lt. Forge. (because it's IC for Sherlock Holmes)
- Not a stance at all for Sherlock Holmes.

(The fictional) Holmes doesn't have a (fictional) stance until the Professor Moriarty draws him into a deadly role-playing game in which Holmes must role-play a character named Col. Mustard.

Now I say, "Lt. Forge says, 'Sherlock Homles says, "Col. Mustard says, 'Moriarty, you fiend, release the girl at once.'"'" This is:

- Actor stance for me (because it's IC for Lt. Forge)
- A fictional Actor stance for the fictional Lt. Forge. (because it's IC for Sherlock Holmes)
- A fictional Pawn stance for the fictional Sherlock Holmes (because it's within Col. Mustard's hypothetical volitional powers to say something, but what's actually said is OOC for Col. Mustard and presented as Col. Mustard's action with no attempt at IC justification)
- Not a stance at all for Col. Mustard

Now I say "Suddenly, the holodeck shuts down, and the deck shudders." This action is:

- Director stance for me. (because it's not IC for Lt. Forge and not within Lt. Forge's volition)
- Not a stance at all (not even a fictional one) for the fictional Lt. Forge.
- Not a stance at all for Sherlock Holmes.
- Not a stance at all for Col. Mustard.

Does this help any? (I fear the worst...)

Please note that in the above examples, I was mostly concerned with distinguishing between Actor and Director stances when there are "levels of reality" involved. Some of the actions in the examples might have been Author or Pawn stance instead; not enough information was presented to prove it was Actor stance in most cases.

- Walt

[Jonathan Walton]

That's a tangle. Does it help?

Yes, indeed.  Thanks, Mike.  I was beginning to think I was going crazy.  The game-within-a-game model does indeed sound exactly like what you've described, adding an additional layer of metagame.  That conceptualization works better than any of the crap I've come up with.

I'm going to have to ponder it some.  But, from what it sounds like, you could almost consider the gods to be "fictional players" and classify their behavior using Stances as well.  For example:

-- if the players are just having Mercury & Zeus converse in a natural way, that could be Actor Stance

-- if the players have Mercury & Zeus take over the bodies of mortals and continue their conversation, that could still be Actor stance from the players' perspective, but it would be Author Stance from the perspective of the gods, who are using the mortals as a cover to enact their own purposes

-- if the players are having Mercury & Zeus use their godlike powers to enact the players' will on the mortal plane, that would be Author Stance from the players' perspective, but Director Stance from the perspective of the gods, since they are directly affecting the game environment

-- if the players are simply enacting their will on the mortal plane (not really paying much attention to the "filters" that the gods represent), that would be Director Stance

Is that it, then?  Have we finally reached the end?

Later.
Jonathan

[Jonathan Walton]

Walt, it's too bad we cross-posted or I would have saved myself a ton of time.  You explained things much better than I could, and the holodeck example is great.  I think we've finally got this issue solved.

Thanks muchly!

Jonathan

EDIT:  Except...

...but manipulation of metagame attributes cannot ever be IC.

In the Bob/Bobatar example then, I take it that Bobatar tells the players to switch to using the Fudge rules, but the players' compliance is voluntary, so it's not actually considered a part of Bobatar's in-game powers.

[Walt Freitag]

Oh, I see what you're getting at here. You not only have levels of reality, you want to break them. Kind of like, when Moriarty becomes aware that he's an NPC software construct in a holodeck program on a starship, and manages to take over the ship.(1)

I'll assume, therefore, that Bobatar is (fictionally portrayed as being)(2) aware that he is a character in a role playing game. He is aware of the players controlling him, and he is aware of the game mechanisms by which his actions will be resolved in the real world and thereby affect his world. That includes being aware that the players hear what he says. And let's not assume that the player's compliance with those effects is voluntary; they might not be, under the social contract (and Bobatar might be aware of that too).

Bobatar says, "Switch to Fudge rules." What stances could that be?

Well, first, Bobatar doesn't have a stance, since Bobatar isn't playing a character in an RPG. He is one; he's not playing one.

Bob is the one who actually uttered Bobatar's request and he's the one who has a stance. Since it's within Bobatar's volitional powers to say something to the players, it's not Director stance. It could be Actor (if Bob is acting on Bobatar's in-character desire to change the world to Fudge resolution) or Author (if Bob is acting on his own desire to change to Fudge resolution) including Pawn (if Bob provides no justification for why Bobatar would make the request). (3)

Now suppose there's a big green button in the game world that Bobatar knows will force the players (under their social contract and the game mechanics) to switch to Fudge rules if he pushes it. Bobatar pushes the big green button. Bob's possible stances for this action are the same as before. The existence of the big green button has made it within Bobatar's volitional powers to force the rules change, so Bob is still not using Director stance.

If the social contract permits, Bob can use Director stance, without necessarily involving Bobatar at all. For example, Bob might introduce the big green button into the game in the first place.

Bobatar would (fictionally) perceive Bob's actions in different ways depending on Bob's stance, which in this game might be worthwhile to explore. Actor stance actions would most likely be perceived by Bobatar as the exercise of his own free will. Author stance (non Pawn) would be perceived as being nudged toward or convinced to make certain decisions that at least in retrospect seem like actions he might have chosen anyway. Pawn stance would be perceived as an external remote control over his body. Director stance might be perceived as godlike acts of magic transforming Bobatar's world... or perhaps just as Bobatar perceiving aspects of the world that he hadn't noticed before.

Now, if Bobatar isn't represented as knowing of the existence of the players or aware that he can speak to them, then saying "Switch to Fudge rules" wouldn't be a plausible in-character action for Bobatar. If Bob puts those words in Bobatar's mouth, it's almost certainly Pawn stance.

Some unncessary confusion seems to be coming from the idea that certain kinds of effects must imply certain kinds of stances that caused them. Your own examples provide interesting cases showing that's not true. An effect that changes something at the metagame level doesn't require a metagame-related stance.

(1) I'm not going to keep inserting the phrase "fictionally portrayed as" everywhere that it might technically be appropriate. Please just assume that I'm sane and therefore aware that the properties and actions of a fictional entity are also fictional.

(2) I'm pretty sure this actually happened in one episode, which led to the immediate dismantling of all holodecks throughout Star Fleet as an obvious safety hazard... or would have, in any plausible universe.

(3) Note that it's not at all uncommon for in-character actions to have metagame effects. It's completely normal. Such as, do something dramatic (but in-character), and get a hero point.

- Walt

[Tim C Koppang]

Walt,

You're my hero.  Those two examples can just rock on.  You cleared up all kinds of doubts still floating around in my head that I knew were unfounded, but nonetheless present.

This was particularly helpful: "An effect that changes something at the metagame level doesn't require a metagame-related stance."

[Jonathan Walton]

I completely agree with Tim, Walt.  Where were you, like, 3 pages worth of confusion ago? ;)

Thank you for the thoughtful, detailed, perceptive response.  Both of your posts hit all my nails on the head.  You perfectly understood what I was getting at and were able to see why things weren't working.

Now, instead of feeling like I'm an raving lunatic, I feel much more confident about writing Storypunk.  You rock.

Later.
Jonathan

[M. J. Young]

Forgive me if I upset things here, but I was following what Jonathan at least seemed to be getting at and don't see why it has been completely resolved.

On the other hand, it seemed to me that the question of whether characters have motivations was integral to his idea, and thus I found it quite baffling that that issue was split off to another thread; however, I will endeavor to address that whenever I find that thread (which I'm guessing was moved to the Theory forum).

Still, I see four concepts which could be distinguished as individual stances; and without prejudicing the matter by attempting to label them, let me present them as succinctly as I am able and see whether there's some reason why these four should only be three. Please accept for the moment that it is entirely plausible for the player and the character to have distinct motivations and objectives in play; I'm sure it happens all the time.
[list=1][*]The player acts from character knowledge to control things which the character could control to achieve a character objective. This is the fairly ordinary form of play, exemplified by a character drawing a weapon and attacking a character who is an enemy of that character.
[*]The player acts from player knowledge to control things which the character could control to achieve a player objective. This would seem to include any action which the player has to justify in some way, and any action which seems entirely out of character for the character but achieves a player-desired objective.
[*]The player acts from character knowledge to control things the character could not control to achieve a character objective. The quickest example of this is "As I'm hiding behind the bed, I see that there is a shotgun beneath it, and slide it out; it's loaded."
[*]The player acts from player knowledge to control things the character could not control to achieve a player objective. This might include that while PC Luke Skywalker is arguing with the Emperor, his player announces that at that moment Han Solo manages to destroy the shield generator (assuming either that no one is actually playing that part, or that it is already known that they succeeded and what matters is the timing of that event relative to Luke's situation, or that it is within the power of the player to determine the outcome of that event).[/list:o]
So which of these is not a genuine distinct stance?

--M. J. Young

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

From what I understand, points 3 and 4 are the same stance. The player is calling out things that have nothing to do with the character's actions. The fact that the character then has other actions based on the things that were called out is imaterial, as far as I gather.

Actually, to be more accurate:

As I'm hiding behind the bed, I see that there is a shotgun beneath it, and slide it out; it's loaded.

This is actually two alternating stances:

As I'm hiding behind the bed, I see that there is a shotgun beneath it, and slide it out; it's loaded.

The reason this does not apply to, how you put it, the player acting from character knowledge, is that character knowledge doesn't have anything to do with the shotgun appearing in that particular place and with it being loaded. Those facts only become character knowledge after the player calls them out.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

Cheers,

J.

[Le Joueur]

Very succinctly put M. J.

The problem is you cannot treat "player knowledge" and "character knowledge" as separate entities.  While it is true that "character knowledge" does not include all of what the player knows, the reverse is not true.  The player knows everything that the character knows.  Thus #3 can, and should, be changed to replace "character knowledge" with "player knowledge."

While it might be true that in #3 type situations the player is acting upon "things the character could not control" to benefit the character, they are not acting upon "character knowledge" because at that point "character knowledge" is an illusion.  There is no character as a distinct entity apart from the player therefore technically the player can only act from player knowledge.  The character has no knowledge of "things the character could not control," therefore acting upon them is not restricted to the subset of "player knowledge" commonly called "character knowledge."

Ultimately, because "character knowledge" is simply a subset of "player knowledge," #3 dissolves into #4.  There are situations where it is for and by the benefit of the character that a player may act upon "things the character could not control," it is still an act of "player knowledge" upon "things the character could not control."

I'm not saying #3 doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist outside of #4.

Fang Langford

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Very succinctly put M. J.

The problem is you cannot treat "player knowledge" and "character knowledge" as separate entities.  While it is true that "character knowledge" does not include all of what the player knows, the reverse is not true.  The player knows everything that the character knows.

Except that's not right. If my character is (for example) a cardio-vascular surgeon, I still don't know anything about open-heart surgery. Same thing goes for a weird fantasy game like Talislanta. I'm a new player, I don't know a thing about the world...yet my Jaka Beastmaster knows an exomorph from a nightbane.

And just like you choose what information you allow your character to use, you can also choose what information to use that your character knows.