Audience

[Jack Spencer Jr]

On 2001-10-20 23:11, Ampersand wrote:
Hmmn.  This is closest to my own view, I guess, but I'm not sure about it.  It seems to close to your concept of "role" - in  which case we'd have to add the bringing-snacks-for-the-group Stance, the arranging-babysitting-Stance, the locking-the-dog-in-the-back-room-so-her-whining-doesn't-bug-us Stance, and so forth.  All of which can be very valuable things, of course, but they're not essential parts of roleplaying - they're merely things we might do in support of roleplaying.

I don't think this particular arguement holds water.  Stance is about what happens at the game table while the game is in session.  These things are ongoing.  Once you've locked up the dog, you don't pay her any mind until the game is done  (you did remember to give her food and water, right?)

While I think I may se your point, these particular examples don't hold too much water IMO.

I said that about the water already, didn't I?

[contracycle]

I don't think that just any RPG "support behaviour" constitutes Audience.  I don't think its just that attention is paid to the currently active players either; I think the key is that those "audiencers" are still participating in the RPG passively, are still probably (IMO anyway) maintaining SOD.  They are not just paying attention ot the game, the game is still the focus of their attention.  Maybe they could be thiinking about "what this tells me about about Bob", or are simply dumbstruck, as mentioned previously, by the stuff that is actually going on in which their characters are not present.  I have certainly seen/felt this from both GM and player sides.

And I also feel that this is quite different from merely milling about, cooking dinner, etc.  As a GM, if a player is "passive-but-involved" I certainly think of them as "the audience", in that they are taking information from the game.  If they are flinging cheetos at one another, they are not.  There are things that, as a GM, I might say or not say depending on who is likely to hear them; I feel that audience is an actual player stance, as the player still has that pyschological commitment to being in the game.

Ohm and nice cartoons, Ampersand.  In fact I was viewing a few on ZNet just a couple of weeks ago.

[ This Message was edited by: contracycle on 2001-10-22 10:57 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth,

I'm afraid I don't see any difference between your statements about Audience stuff and mine, in terms of its substance. The difference seems to be that you want to call it a Stance, and I don't.

I'm beginning to think that this preference is awfully arbitrary - can ANYONE tell me WHY they "just like" calling these behaviors (which all of us agree exist) a Stance? In a non-circular form, please? Saying "because they are attentive to what's going on" is not a justification. We know they are attentive and supportive. But they are not directly determining any in-game events, which to me indicates that they are not in a literal condition of Exploration, which to me indicates they are not role-playing, but FACILITATING the role-playing on a social level. Thus they are not in a Stance.

That's my argument, which is consistent with the terms Exploration and role-playing as they appear in my essay. I have yet to hear anyone's argument beyond "well, I think it's a Stance" that is integrated with the Exploration issue or other terms in my essay.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

Well, having just re-read your section on Exploration, I see nothing there which mandates an active behaviour.  It questions whether the participant is interested, concerned, and committed.  My argument is that many players are in just such a state when they happen to be "off camera"; their exploration is not suspended merely because they are not the immediately active agent.

[contracycle]

And indeed, in the thread on directorial power, you say:

This is a very important point, because it permits taking a Stance EVEN WHEN ONE'S CHARACTER IS NOT PRESENT - you may take a Stance toward a character who IS present, hopping into co-pilot seat with the other player.

Now your emphasis here is on an active character again, but if you can be Driector towards an active character I don;t understand why you cannot be Audience to an active character, even if it is not your own.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gareth,

Good call! Excellent point - the very same that bugged me for a while after posting my last message. Whether my solution is sense or sophistry, I'm not sure.

Here's how it goes.

Of course you can be Audience to an active character who is not yours - in fact, I'd say it's almost necessary to the whole concept.

What differs, to me, is that the Exploration which includes Stances is the CONTRIBUTION to what's going on in direct, imaginatively-additive way, in the group context. Please note that in my essay, I move very quickly from solitary Exploration to the group, communicative context. To me, Stances exist only within that context.

The Audience member, although his or her actions may be facilitative toward the role-playing going on, is not - by definition - directly adding to the imaginative situation. As soon as he or she does so, as I keep saying, the person enters a Stance.

One final point - in the essay, I say that I am "not convinced" that Audience Stance exists. I did not say, "No bleedin' Audience Stance! Ever!" or any such conclusive thing. So basically, you are seeing me in state of consideration, and so far, your last point is the ONLY thing that anyone has said that keeps me from coming to a negative conclusion.

Let me know what you think.

Best,
Ron