The Case for 4 Stances

[Jonathan Walton]

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.

The problem is that I keep getting mixed messages on this point.  Some people have said that Stances only make sense in relation to character (and this certainly seems to be the case in the distictions between Actor/Author/Pawn).  But Director seems to be a different thing entirely.  

I used to think Director was exactly like you described, based on things completely seperate from character, but then it seems to break down when you have characters with almost perfect control of their environment.  If the difference between insanely-powerful Actor Stance and Director Stance is just the character, then it does seem to be about character.

However, most of the examples we've been messing with lately have been players momentarily taking Director Stance to support a character that they're also playing.  To me, this seems to be a type of Director Stance that's pretty different from the type of non-character-based Director that GMs take all the time.

At this point, I don't know how much longer it will be beneficial to continue this discussion.  I think we're all beginning to understand each other pretty well, but the essential disagreement/misunderstanding remains.  I feel like this is deeper than just my misunderstanding or the Stances needing to be re-clarified.  Should we give it a rest for a while and maybe come back to it later?

Later. (pun not intended)
Jonathan

[M. J. Young]

I know that you all hang around here all day with nothing else to do but check forum threads, but please give a guy a chance who has a family and can only look in once a day ;).

The distinction toward which I was getting was between a player affecting events which would be within the character's knowledge and a player affecting events which would be outside the character's knowledge.

Of the former: "Although Moriarty's henchman arrives, Moriarty had locked the door to try to catch Holmes (me), and Watson happens to be standing between Moriarty and the door so they can't get in."

Of the latter:  "Moriarty's henchman was arrested last night in Soho, but none of us know this. Thus Moriarty has not received the expected delivery."

It is clear in the former case that Holmes can see the door, and the player declares it to be locked and blocked by Watson; and that he can hear someone pounding on the door trying to get in.  In the latter case, it is given that neither Holmes nor anyone else there know that the henchman was arrested, and that Holmes cannot know even that Moriarty was expecting some kind of delivery, let alone that it had not come.

I see a distinction here between using stance to determine things which while outside the character's sphere of control are within the character's direct knowledge, as opposed to changing things which are outside the character's knowledge. Holmes may never know any of the points his player decided in the latter case; he is clearly aware of all of them in the former.

Does that clarify the distinction?

--M. J. Young

[JMendes]

Hey, :)

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.

Heh... Wait a minute. Although I can easily agree that it's quite possible for a character to act with motives that differ from those of the player, this does not apply to other world factors. No matter what reasons you have for dictating director-stance-type stuff, they can never be the character's motivations, quite simply because the character cannot metagamely affect the environment.

(If the character can ingamely affect the environment in the manner dictated, then this may well be one of the other two stances, not director stance.)

As such, I really don't see where you are going with this.

Cheers,

J.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

All right, that does it. Five pages of piffle, people. It's because multiple explanations are flying across one another and confusing Jonathan. It's time to stop.

The answers to his questions are very easy and I've provided them, in my posts. However, they've been obscured by quite a few side issues and a few unfortunate statements that were well-meant but can be read in multiple ways.

For instance, Mike says, "Director Stance has nothing to do with character." I know what Mike means by this. However, saying it's "nothing to do with character" is confusing Jonathan, because as he rightly says, stances are about the real human's relation to a character. Properly stated, Director stance by definition is about this too: it excludes what the character does, focusing on the environment (in a very general sense of the word) instead. It is about how the player's announcement relates to the character - it excludes the character for a moment and focuses on his or her surroundings.

Now, I have no intention of disentangling the multitude of similar boggles that litter this thread. None of them are substantive. I am not going to permit them to continue to chase their tails here.

Jonathan, contact me privately simply to work out what I'm saying regarding stances, and then, after that, if you can identify a point for debate, begin a new thread.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Now that I've read some stern private messages, all right - that was too harsh. Several points:

1) Jonathan's concerns are irrelevant to stance, but they are not irrelevant to role-playing. None of them are stupid or unworthy of attention.

2) "Piffle" is too extreme. Lots of interesting points have come up, but my concern is with clear issues and coherent argument - which this thread grades low on, not because anyone's being dumb or muddled, but because people need to back up and look at the basic definitions, talk about those, and then see whether a question exists.

2) More people besides myself are capable of explaining stances. However, I do think that the particular knot faced by Jonathan is going to require a bit of parsing that I'm good at. Others shouldn't be excluded, of course.

3) The original topic of the thread concerned the distinctions within Author stance. That topic is over, done with, dealt with, and completely closed. I do think that this thread need not continue.

4) Perhaps the strongest possible thread on this matter would go as follows: describe an instance of play, using player and character terms as I did, and as Jonathan did later. I or whoever's interested will break it down in stance terms, with special attention to variables of play that are not relevant to stance.

Best,
Ron