The Case for 4 Stances

[Le Joueur]

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.

I thought this phrase would get me into trouble.

The point with stances seems to be about choosing what will be done.  If you, as a player, have no knowledge of cardio-vascular surgery, your character will not make any such decisions (outside of 'I do the surgery thing,' which is based on the player's knowledge of what the character can do).

You've got it exactly with "choose what information you allow your character to use."  You cannot make decisions based on character knowledge that you do not know; that is why I said that the character only knows a part of player knowledge and that, as such, it isn't separate from the player knowledge.  As far as Stance goes, there is no character knowledge outside of the player.

Is that more clear?

Fang Langford (whose having a doozy of a time communicating today)

[Tim C Koppang]

MJ,

I think there's a lot of unnecessary confusion surrounding player goals and character goals.  The fact of the matter is that player and character goals are going to be suspiciously similar because, as I've stated before, character motivations are ethereal and only exist in the mind of the controlling player.  The real difference here is the notion of meta-game goals vs. in-game or maybe in-character goals.

The former would have to do with issues of dramatic entrances, whether a shotgun is behind the bed when no one has stated the fact explicitly, how many hero points a character has, and all the rest.  The later would be in the form of "I want to impress people in the bar when I walk in," "I need a shotgun now," and "I really want to succeed."

Those are kind of lousy examples, but what I really want to get across here is that the separation is between meta-game goals and in-game goals—not between player goals and character goals.

What you should really be differentiating between in examples three and four is whether or not the player—who is affecting the meta-game—is acting in the character's interest (as seen from the character's point of view), or not.  To put it another way ... When a player is making decisions in director stance does he help the character or not? (Note that the latter option does not necessarily mean the player is harming the character.)

This, however, does not matter in terms of stance.  When you are in director stance, you are always affecting things outside of the character and thus you don't have to consider what the character would and would not want to happen if he was a real person.  Of course you could, that's your prerogative as the controlling player, but all director stance requires is that you change something outside of the character's volition or power to influence.

[Mike Holmes]

I think there's a lot of unnecessary confusion surrounding player goals and character goals.  The fact of the matter is that player and character goals are going to be suspiciously similar because, as I've stated before, character motivations are ethereal and only exist in the mind of the controlling player.  The real difference here is the notion of meta-game goals vs. in-game or maybe in-character goals.

This is a problematic way to state this. I played a character once who had the goal of horrible bloody murder. My player goal was to prevent him from succeeding at all costs, and get him killed. While all the while trying to portray the character's actions in a way that made it seem like he was pursuing his goals. Thus, when I as the player knew things he didn't, I made sure he took "unlucky" wrong turns, and such.

So it can't be advocacy of the character per se (hence why I didn't include it in my definition above; considered and rejected it). It has to be advocacy of the character's place in the narrative. I didn't want the character to succeed, I wanted cool stuff to happen to the character.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

MJ,

I think there?s a lot of unnecessary confusion surrounding player goals and character goals.  The fact of the matter is that player and character goals are going to be suspiciously similar because, as I?ve stated before, character motivations are ethereal and only exist in the mind of the controlling player.

I was distressed to find, or perhaps not to find the thread on character versus player "goals" and "motivations". Mike has responded to this superbly, but I feel I must not merely concur but support that statement.

I have played my share of "brave warrior" types, the sort who are stuck on honor and immune to fear. The fact is that my player motivations and goals are always to keep the guy alive and out of trouble while playing him appropriately; the character motivations and goals are entirely different, giving no thought to the potential danger.

One such character was a kensai, immune to fear. He was leader of a rather large party within which he had identified several other characters whose opinion he trusted: a paladin, a samurai, a monk, and another kensai. A situation came up which posed palpable danger, a sort of magical road block of which it was said that some who crossed it were never seen again. Not wanting to risk my character or the lives of the rest of the party, I immediately looked for an excuse to go several days around the block. So I called a conference with those characters whom I trusted--all of whom were similarly immune to fear. Being immune to fear and not having a specific danger to assess, our characters all were in agreement that there was no reason to go around the roadblock. I doubt there was a player at the table who didn't say that with serious trepidation, knowing that we might have sealed the doom of the entire party by acting in character.

That same character later happened to rescue a drow princess from the clutches of some slavers. The correct thing for him to do was offer to escort her wherever she would be taken, and so he did this. She responded that she would like to be taken home, to her family and kingdom more than ten miles beneath the surface. I'm a long-time D&D referee, and I know that at that depth you've got dangers that were way out of the league of a party headed by a fourth level kensai and containing second and even first level player characters; but those were not matters that should enter the mind of my character, and so they didn't. His honor demanded that he escort her home. He informed the rest of the party that this was a matter of his personal honor, but he would pay anyone who was willing to go with him. Frankly, I'd have liked to have avoided that mission entirely, as I fully expected to lose everyone long before we reached our destination; but at this point the character motivations were not possible to avoid. All I could do was find ways to provide him with safety nets, hole cards, whatever I could find that I could reasonably place with him for the trip.

I often play characters whose motivations are at odds with my own. They have goals, I have goals. Even in Multiverser, I recognize that that version of "me" that is running around in the game world is going to make choices based on his experience and desires, and not based on mine.

Yes, I know that the motivations of a fictional character are fictitious; that does not really make them unreal. As a writer of fiction, I can assure you that it frequently happens that the motivations of my fictional characters get in my way. I want something to happen, perhaps I need for it to happen in order for the plot to continue; but the character may virtually stand up and inform me that this is not something he would do, at least in the context in which I've placed it. I have to go back and rewrite and reconfigure enough to change the situation, and probably find a response for the character which fits both the character and the situation and still achieves what I want. Or else I have to abandon what I want and look for another route to where I hoped to go.

Player and character knowledge are distinct; player and character motivations are also distinct. The question often is whether I do what I want or what my character would do--and in the same sense that this distinguishes pawn from actor, I think it should distinguish director into two categories.

--M. J. Young

[Le Joueur]

Player and character knowledge are distinct; player and character motivations are also distinct. The question often is whether I do what I want or what my character would do--and in the same sense that this distinguishes pawn from actor, I think it should distinguish director into two categories.

All of what you said is true about characters having different goals and motivations than their player, except for two things.[list=1][*]All character goals are arise from the player's desire to give them credence.[*]The character simply cannot have ideas that do not occur to the player.[/list:o]Otherwise you (and Mike) are manifestly correct; the goals of the character are not those of the player, except that they also come from the player and nowhere else.

Fang Langford

[Jonathan Walton]

Otherwise you (and Mike) are manifestly correct; the goals of the character are not those of the player, except that they also come from the player and nowhere else.

So now it's my turn to ask: why does this matter?  I mean, if we're talking about two distinct types of goals here, why does it matter that they both ultimately come from the same source?  Shouldn't we be allowed to seperate them into two seperate categories, as it seems they deserve?

I guess I just don't buy this "same source" argument as a reason for Director Stance not to be split into distinct parts.

Later.
Jonathan

[Le Joueur]

Hey Jonathan,

Otherwise you (and Mike) are manifestly correct; the goals of the character are not those of the player, except that they also come from the player and nowhere else.

So now it's my turn to ask: why does this matter?  I mean, if we're talking about two distinct types of goals here, why does it matter that they both ultimately come from the same source?  Shouldn't we be allowed to seperate them into two seperate categories, as it seems they deserve?

I guess I just don't buy this "same source" argument as a reason for Director Stance not to be split into distinct parts.

I guess this brings us back to the same 'subspecies' standoff as the 'pawn stance'/Author Stance discussion.  The supposed 'character driven' Director Stance would be as different as 'pawn stance.'  Because all motives essentially come from the player, both are player-driven, but one has 'an extra layer' attending to the pseudo-motivations of the character.  They are essentially the same, but one carries an additional 'layer.'

Really, I haven't the slightest idea why I'm defending it as a Stance; I don't follow the Stances or the GNS.  My entire purpose here was to remind people that characters don't exist, they can't have independant motives (contrasting is certainly fine so long as we don't suggest that their motives come from somewhere else other than the player).

Here's an idea.  Why don't we add both Pawn and Character-Driven Director Stance?  They simply add layers to two already acknowledged Stances, just like Gamism and Narrativism 'add' priorities to the basics of Simulationism.  I mean think about it; all forms of GNS gaming are about 'Exploration,' right?  Gamism and Narrativism add meta-game priorities which are eschewed by Simulationism.  With me so far?  Then we can take Director Stance and add a 'meta-stance' priority to serve the pseudo-motivations of the character; does that work?  Then we can add Pawn Stance as having an additional 'meta-stance' priority of not giving the character's concerns any value.

Or not, because the GNS and the Stances that go with it aren't community property or a democratic creation.  (How about that for an "argument as a reason" for not splitting?)

Fang Langford

p. s. Honestly Jonathan, you've got some really intriguing ideas.  I don't see why you need to shoehorn them into the GNS.  Wouldn't it be better to start your own model?

p. p. s. And for the record, all I cared about was people talking like player characters were actual entities, outside of the player with unique and original goals, feelings, and motivations.  If you want to talk about those as slave to the player's desire to emulate the character, I have no comment.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jonathan,

I'm reeeal confused again. Here's an example of Director stance in action.

I'm playing Bart Blass, explorer and action hero; I'm confronted with the NPC Feeney McGurk, who's committed a large number of atrocities on many people, some of whom Bart knows (or rather, knew).

Epic combat ensues, and at one point, upon scoring a fabulous victory upon McGurk, I gaze at the great damage roll (or whatever) and say, "Ha! I [meaning Blass] clip him on the jaw, which wouldn't do anything ordinarily, but there's this wooden beam behind him, and his head flies back and smacks it!"

[Twist of the dial: in some games, who-says-what-when is very formal, ranging from "GM only, ever" to "High scorer narrates" or whatever. The default situation is basically handled socially, with any number of people contributing but the buck stopping somewhere.]

[Twist of the dial: in some games, I spend a point, roll a dice, or use some other formal system mechanic to be permitted to say this. In this case, note that it is used as an alternative or a rescue to missing McGurk or otherwise being unable to stop him, rather than a followup narration detail as it is in the default case.]

That's Director stance - the player has arranged physical matters that have nothing to do with the character's abilities (i.e. the placement of the beam) such that something occurs.

"I show up, exactly then!" Director stance. "There's a flashlight in the glove compartment, right?" Director stance. "The light shines from behind me, so all they see is this cool silhouette."

All of these happen to include the character doing something, which is not the point. The point is that they all include establishing, moving, or positioning non-character-activity elements in the scene. The "I show up" example is actually the most drastic of the bunch, as it entails retroactively twisting all of the game-world's imagined time and space between the character's previous appearance and the events of the current scene.

So what is all this about character motivations? I do not get it.

Best,
Ron

[Jonathan Walton]

Okay, Ron, try this on for size:

I'm playing Arslan, a diabolical despot who delights in the conquering and murder of all those that oppose him.  Though, as a player, I'd enjoy seeing Arslan confronted by more benevolent forces and ultimately defeated, Arslan, as a character, is bent on nothing less than world domination, and won't stop until he's dead.  If I, as his player, do not depict him as such, I'm being untrue to the character, and that is also unsatisfactory.  In this case, player and character have completely different motives (granting, as Fang said, that both these motives ultimately spring from the player).

Now, if I'm in a situation when I can use director stance, I can use it in a couple different ways:

A) I can use Director Stance to make what I, as a Player, personally want to happen (move Arslan closer to a glorious defeat at the hands of his enemies).

B) I can use Director stance to make what I, wanting to make Arslan a real threat and desiring to remaining true to his character, wish to happen (move Arslan closer to world domination).

Now, if ALL the players have the potential to use Director Stance, B might be another, possibly better, way of getting at A.  If I make Arslan's defeat too easy (since that's what I desire also), it makes the game less fun for everyone involved.  If I make Arslan have a good chance of succeeding and threaten the other players' characters with possible death or severe injury, it makes their eventual victory that much more glorious.

Does that example make things clearer?

Later.
Jonathan

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jonathan,

Sorry, man, it doesn't. I'm really going to have to have examples of your two types of Director stance written out in terms of actual play, like I did with Bart and Feeney.

Best,
Ron

[Jonathan Walton]

Similar situation to your example:

Bart is playing Feeney, a character that has committed a number of atrocities.  There is a confrontation between Feeney and some heroic PC types on the edge of a "bottomless" pit.  Very dramatic and dangerous.  Epic combat ensues and, at some point, Bart gets to exercise Director Stance.

A) "Ha, I clip GoodPC#1 across the jaw, doing no damage.  But look, the pit yawns right next to him and he looses his balance, falling into the abyss!" (using Director Stance to support Feeney)

B) "Ha, I clip GoodPC#1 across the jaw, doing no damage.  And look, the pit yawns right next to Feeney!  Off-balance from delivering the blow, Feeney falls into the pit!" (using Director Stance against Feeney)

Why would Bart do B?  Because it supports the notion that good should triumph over evil, and important theme in their game.  Or maybe Feeney is supposed to get reborn as a cyborg and seek revenge.  Or maybe Bart's just sick of playing the character and wants to make a new one.

Anyway, I suppose I'm distinguishing between using Director Stance in support of a character's cause and using it for player purposes distict from or opposed to character purposes.

Any better, or should I try again?

Later.
Jonathan

[Mike Holmes]

I see the distinction. But this is not at all like the difference betwween Pawn and Author stances. The difference between the two in that case is that the player merely retroactively assigns a reason why the character did what he did in Author mode, and does not in Pawn.

1) Pawn mode pro character. Feeney stops and gives a small child a flower.

2) Pawn mode anti-character. Feeney jumps into the pit.

3) Author Mode pro character. Feeney has had a huge change of heart after hitting his opponent, and gives a small child a flower.

4) Author Mode anti-character. Feeny sees the error of his ways, and jumps into the pit.

The pro-anti, thing is a totally separate consideration.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jonathan,

Dude, that distinction applies as an independent variable across all the stances, even Actor stance. It doesn't parallel the Pawn/non-Pawn distinction within Author stance at all.

Nothing about the definitions of any of the stances concerns whether the actions are to the benefit of a character, or accord with "what the character wants." Even in Actor stance, the player can be expressing elements of the character that the character, for instance, might not want to be revealed (fictionally speaking).

That's a whole different issue, and I can see why you're puzzled if you're confounding it with stance.

Best,
Ron

[Jonathan Walton]

Mike, I wasn't trying to harp on the "opposition" point, I was just using that as an example where the player and character's desires were obviously different.  My main point was "distictness" not the pro-anti issue, which I agree is completely seperate.

Later.
Jonathan

[Mike Holmes]

If you were proposing a stance where one used Director stance, but did not give an in-game rationale for what happened, versus Director Stance where one did, I suppose could support that as different. But it'd be odd, and only functional in a Surrealist game.

"Author type" Director Stance: Rain starts falling because it's cloudy, and makes sense with the mood of play right now (someone did just this in the last Synthesis playtest).

"Pawn type" Director Stance: Cats start falling from the sky. Why? I dunno.

The thing is that the "world" doesn't have motives, and as such something "senseless" is actually likely validly reasonable. No motive required. In any case, since director stance is about making decisions about something other than the character, this seems to apply.

I think that's the problem you're having. Just keep in mind that Director Stance has nothing to do with a character, and everything to do with changing the world.

Mike