Audience stance???

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I don't know if I was the first person to suggest it, but I do recall coining it at one point when someone gave some kind of example or other.

Unfortunately, I don't remember where or what the circumstance were for my comment, but I'll bet it was mostly a lame joke, like most of my comments.

Thinking on it now, I seem to recall it involved some style of gaming where the players had no input or means of interacting playing.

(If anyone find that original post before me, let me know.)

Audience Stance could enter the lexicon for completeness sake but really isn't a stance worth having.

It's like the many angles you can sit to watch TV.  If you're behind the television you can't see nullifying the point of watching TV.

Or such is my take on the term when I used it. (or as I recall.  I'll judge better when I find the original post.)

[contracycle]

Yes, it is a stance worth having.  Or perhaps, an unavoidable stance, given that not everyone can be in the spotlight at the same time.

Most games I've been in started with an opening narration: "A long time away in a galaxy far far away..."  At this point players are necessarily in audience stance, absorbing relevant information.

When the spotlight has focussed on one player or character, the other players are in effect in Audience stance, observing but not participating in the action, acquiring information as the player rather than as the character.

I think the significance of Audience stance can be illustrated with reference to Star Wars.  In episode 4, Vader plants a bug on the Millenium Falcon to track the fleeing heroes to the rebel base, unbeknownst to them.  The Audience becomes aware of this, however, and so the arrival of the Death Star around Yavin does not come as a surprise.  This is authors plot exposition.  The characters do not need to know this and indeed do not.  If this were an RPG, there are complications to do with firewalling and whatnot, but in essence the same technique can be exploited.  

The advantage here is, to use a ciontemporary buzzphrase, the managing of expectation.  Characters in an entirely single-author-directed work are herded into the story by a central intellect who, by virtue of maintaining a clear Premise, knows what they want to do next and can rationalise ways to make it happen.  Where characters are authored by players, this central vision does not exist and the potential for characters doing things that are internally consistent but outside the scope of the game at the table is very large.  The opportunity afforded by Audience stance is to inform the PLAYER directly, and the character tacitly, as to what is expected of them.  Although honest players will attempt to not act on that information, subconsciously their expectations as to the momentum of the story have been framed correctly such that they are able to constructively contribute.  The simple fact of having this knowledge in the player minds will to some extent influence their expectations and behaviours.

Thus, I think, prompting Audience stance in players can be an extremely useful technique for ensuring that everyone stays on the same page, as it were.

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth,

That's a very strong argument. I think this topic could use a good shaking down, although I'm pretty sure it belongs in the RPG Theory rather than in the GNS forum (a quibble).

Others' thoughts on the matter are greatly desired.

Best,
Ron

[Laurel]

While I think that being a member of the audience during part of the game is an essential and under-appreciated role, I don't think its an actual stance.

"Stance is defined as how a person arrives at
decisions for an imaginary character's imaginary actions"

As audience, you're provided information you wouldn't otherwise know, and while that information might effect what actions you take as part of your stance, I don't it is a separate stance in itself.  During your time as audience, you are not involved in decision making but rather being a valuable witness to someone else's acting/directing/authorship.

Laurel

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

As a SMALL contribution to this issue - as an example of the kind of thinking going on - I identify a lot of player contribution as "co-authoring." Sam is playing Sebastian, and Sebastian is center-stage in a scene. Well, Bob is playing Bartholemew, but Bartholemew is in suspended animation.

All right, Bob is (to my way of thinking) not role-playing Bartholemew at all. He is engaged in what's going on for two reasons. (1) He's gathering information to be prepared for when Bartholemew gets back into commission, in which case we can see him in PREPARATION for role-playing, but not really in any stance at all because he's not role-playing.

Or (2), he could be shoehorning himself into Sam's role-playing of Sebastian, with enthusiastic reactions or suggestions or whatever. If Sam is OK with this, then basically we have Bob going into author stance regarding Sebastian (not his character, but that is not an issue).

Any other form of engagement isn't role-playing either (i.e. watching the show fully as an audience member). I am saying that taking an Audience ROLE is understandable, but that it is not a STANCE because the player isn't determining a character's action (or "world's" action if you want to be complete about it).

This post was a little garbled, but with any luck I've managed to present where my head is on this topic.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Well, look at the way audiences at sports events have a psychological relationship with the actual eprfromers or players.  They identify to a very strong degree, identify with the fortunes of the players by proxy.  I think this kind of thing - "of but not in" - is audience as a stance.  The audience is not merely a passive observer, even though they are not making active decisions.  If stances are restrcited to what occurs in the physical session, then some accomdoation for "temporarily inactive" players must be made.

[Le Joueur]

Contracycle wrote:

Well, look at the way audiences at sports events have a psychological relationship with the actual performers or players.  They identify to a very strong degree, identify with the fortunes of the players by proxy.  I think this kind of thing - "of but not in" - is audience as a stance.  The audience is not merely a passive observer, even though they are not making active decisions.  If stances are restricted to what occurs in the physical session, then some accommodation for "temporarily inactive" players must be made.

This, to my mind, colors on the argument we had over the meaning of the word 'actor' in 'actor stance.'  While the stances are told to us as not having anything other than passing semblance to theatre, I have always seen that when a player focuses exclusively on their own character's experiences (arguably actor stance) to the exclusion of providing entertainment value (I think I need a better word here) for the other participants (including the gamemaster), they are playing rather poorly in the group effort that is role-playing gaming.

What they need is to be a better actor.

Ultimately this suggests that there is something like a like an audience to actor relationship at work during some split-second instances of play.  While I agree that it probably does not achieve 'stance' level, the alternative thus far has been to avoid its mention.  Perhaps we need to say that good audience skills (supporting the 'actor' while in spotlight, or the player on the field) are important to the well-function role-playing game, but heretofore have not been made a part of any model for critical analysis.  (In short form, audience is a role played by participants outside of the spotlight and not a 'stance' per Ron's definitions.)

I might include it under the topics involved with good gamesmanship, avoiding dysfunctional play, and social contract issues.

Fang Langford

[Valamir]

I'm having a little trouble with that distinction Ron.  I absolutely understand what you're saying with Audience as a "Role" exists but its not a "Stance".  I don't understand (perhaps similar to another thread) why that distinction is being made.  

If The Role of Audience exists, instead of creating a whole seperate niche for it, what is the harm in just labeling it a Stance and including it with the others.  It is alike in all other ways.  It is an attitude towards the current events of a roleplaying game affected at various times by the game's participants.  One can shift from Author to Audience and back again, just as one can shift from Author to Actor and back again.

To say that Actor and Author are both actively involved in shared authorship, but Audience is just a passive observer I think is splitting hairs far too finely.  It may be technically correct but I don't see where the distinction adds anything but confusion.

Plus I do think Gareth is on to something with the sports fan analogy.  Consider:  Albert is currently playing and is in Audience "mode".  His non gaming girlfriend wanders in and stands near the wall for a few minutes watching the proceedings trying to understand what is so appealing about this activity.  SHE is the passive observer.  ALBERT is far more involved in the game even if his character is currently off stage. Clearly his involvement, even at that point in time has more in common with the other players than with his girlfriend (assuming he isn't using the down time for other things like grabbing a snack or scoring brownie points or something).

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I'll get back to this issue in more detail later, but for now, please note: I never mentioned a word about being a "passive observer." I chose my term carefully - that audience-ing is a ROLE, which indeed means doing stuff, feeling stuff, communicating stuff, and so on.

I think that when that role contributes to decisions of characters (by influencing players who ARE in a Stance) than it becomes Stance, usually Author or Director. I think that when it doesn't, it is still an active Role thing.

It's not Stance because of Stance's definition; I can't get much clearer than that. "Stance" is not defined as "what a person does at a role-playing table," but rather as "how a role-playing participant determines a character's decisions and actions."

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

On 2001-10-16 09:52, Ron Edwards wrote:
It's not Stance because of Stance's definition; I can't get much clearer than that. "Stance" is not defined as "what a person does at a role-playing table," but rather as "how a role-playing participant determines a character's decisions and actions."

I understand that.  The question really is that that appears to me to be an arbitrarily narrow definition and I'm hoping you can explain to me why it is not.

From my perspective "what a person does at a role-playing table" is far more useful in practice.  It includes everything in the "determines character decisions" subset, as well as encompassing any and all other activities.

In other words its inclusive rather than exclusive.  It provides a place for a wide range of recognizable gaming activities to be acknowledged codified and examined.  Otherwise it seems likely that one is going to be spending an awful lot of bandwidth discussing what is actually "a stance" and what is just "a role"; a segregation which to me at this moment doesn't seem to make a hill of beans difference to the task of trying to understand the hows and whys of role playing.  

I guess what I'm asking for is just this:  Can you explain to me why it does make a difference and why this distinction actually has analytical value?  If so, I'll be more than happy to incorporate that idea into my own world view.  If instead the definition is more or less an inherited legacy then I can choose to accept it on face value or dismiss it for my purposes as I choose.  Right now I can't do either because I don't understand why its there in the first place enough to pass such judgement upon it (note judgement here is not right vs. wrong but simply measuring the utility of the idea to me).

It seems natural to me to have a list of Stances some of which might be character decision stances, some might be world decision stances, some might be metagame stances, some might be out of game stances.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Actually, to interject here (and the admins can move this to the RPG Theory Forum.  That would be better.  I'd do it myself but I don't think I can.)

IIRC the Audience Stance I mentioned was something along the lines of the GM telling you what your character feels or would do.  Control over the character's actions or decisions are effectively taken out of the player's hands.

Does this happen?  Should this be considered a Stance?  I think that if it is called a Stance, it is called such facetiously.  It's more useful to name it as a warning for what not to do since it takes on of the reasons to roleplay away.

But that's my theory.

[contracycle]

Hmm, I'm not aware of Audience stance having been used to indicate loss of player control myself.  But thats just my experience.  But I am also unhappy with ditching a hitherto acknowledged stance withou clear motive.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

My argument is that we do NOT have an acknowledged "Audience Stance" as part of the lexicon.

No one has defined it. I have spent some time looking up references here on the Forge, and clearly this term was mentioned, then picked up by some people as an "obvious" or otherwise-established term.

So that's the problem. Ralph, for instance, may have a very clear idea what HE thinks the term means, and may be assuming that the rest of us simply know exactly what he means by it. Well, we don't. I sure don't. It has never been discussed or established.

I suggest an Audience Stance thread in RPG Theory. If someone wants to start it, I'll pick with Ralph's trenchant question about WHY I'm being sticky about roles and Stances ... but not until I get some proposed definitions first.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

My argument is that we do NOT have an acknowledged "Audience Stance" as part of the lexicon.

No one has defined it. I have spent some time looking up references here on the Forge, and clearly this term was mentioned, then picked up by some people as an "obvious" or otherwise-established term.

Actually, you might want to check again, Ron; Audience Stance is pretty clearly listed in the old GNS 101 FAQ; it even has its own section.

Since before the new essay, it was all we had for a 'lexicon' many people still fall back on the understandings they gleaned from those pages.

Just to be clear,
Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Good enough, Fang. You've caught me out.

Now, can we go to RPG Theory and discuss Audience (whatever) there now, please?

Best,
Ron