Is Director Stance Real?

[Le Joueur]

Ron Edwards wrote:

Anyone else want to weigh in on this one? I am finding myself shockingly open-minded regarding Vincent's suggestion. Save me from my folly or push me the rest of the way, I guess.

[Onto the soapbox again...]

I guess I've been waiting patiently for someone to make this case.  (I believe I am known as the 'lurking disagreement person' with most of the GNS/Stances/Modes/Immersive-Pawns divisions and terminology.)  But I think the time has come for me to make my point.

All of this has gone around and around before, but has always been tied up by adherence to tradition in the end.  The reason I never got around to my problem with the division between Author and Director Stances this clearly is because of the bad reception I receive each time I suggest that it is not the model but the terms that are causing the problem.

Again and again, Ron has asserted that the original four Stances in the old GNS 101 FAQ (I couldn't find the link, but have a copy if anyone needs a reference) had nothing whatsoever to do with film or theatre, even though they are the sum of the major roles in these productions (Audience, Actor, Author, and Director).  I have argued at length that the apparent conspiracy of the cluster of terms is proof enough that they have inherent problems, but to no avail.  Let me try one more time.

Ultimately I think the point brought up here is that Author and Director Stance only differ by the fields of influence they work with.  As posited earlier, one is about the player's character; the other has no such limits.  The reason I have never seen any difference is because every tool and technique is the same for both.  The 'how' is no different, only the 'on what.'  Discarding Audience Stance for a moment, this means there remain two Stances, Actor and 'Manipulator.'  They clearly differ in that one works with devices available only to the character, the alternative works with every other.

Why 'Manipulator' Stance?  While the definitions of Actor and Author Stance in the new lexicon (Ron's current essay) seem grown from the same root, I have to say that Author Stance bears more in common with Director Stance because of how both are about manipulating things.  "Retroactively 'motivating'" something and "determining the aspects" of something are clearly synonyms of manipulating them.

In this new essay, Ron goes quite far characterizing immersive play as just the extreme form of In-Character Mode.  He also identifies immersion as "highly associated" with Actor Stance.  In outright fashion he clearly defines Pawn play (even though he makes the mistake of calling it a stance) as a subset of Author Stance.  There is also strong implication that Pawn play is an application of the Out-of-Character approach to play.  And yet Ron seems unsure when Nobilis uses In-Character and Out-of-Character to refer to Actor and 'Manipulator' (Author) Stances respectively.

It should be clear, if the In-Character approach contains immersion that is "highly associated" with Actor Stance, and if the Out-of-Character approach implies an inclusion of Pawn play that is a subset of Author Stance, there is an obvious correlation.

What about the 'loose sides,' the places without complete one-to-one correlation?  What about the parts of In-Character approach that are not included in immersion?  I can't think of anything but a few exceptions where the In-Character approach exceeds the boundaries of Actor Stance, and you know what they say about exceptions¹.  How about where Actor Stance is not "highly associated" with the In-Character approach?  You got me, are there even any exceptions¹ there?

Okay, what about where Author Stance excludes Pawn play?  Well, since things are either In-Character or Out-of-Character (I don't think there is a middle ground), and Author stance is about "retroactively 'motivating'" a character, obviously from the 'outside,' I would have to say that there aren't even exceptions¹ to non-Pawn play Author Stance being Out-of-Character.  Right, how about Out-of-Character approaches that do not include Pawn play?  As few as these examples are, I think they all fall neatly into Author Stance too.

Does this correlate Author Stance to the Out-of-Character approach?  Well, if you are "determining a character's decisions" based on something other than the "knowledge and perceptions [of] that character" it is defined as not being Actor Stance.  The inverse is also clearly true.  The only really obvious disparity between using In-Character and Out-of-Character terminology is the presence of Directorial Stance in this set.  Director Stance is clearly exclusive of the In-Character approach and if we recognize the only difference between it and Author Stance is scope, then it too collapses easily into Out-of-Character terminology.

Ultimately this breaks down to In-Character Stance (Actor Stance without the histrionic, communicative confusion²), Out-of-Character Stance with a focus on a specific character (Author Stance), and Out-of-Character Stance without said focus (Director Stance).  The difference between normal usage of In-Character and Out-of-Character is the use of the term 'Stance' (which can be taken to mean the 'about decisions' part if you like).

In a world where we are willing to separate the fine hairs of gamemaster style 'Manipulator' Stance from the 'specific character only' player style of 'Manipulator' Stance because of their slightly different scope, it only makes sense to separate the In-Character approach from Actor Stance and the Out-of-Character approach from 'Manipulator' Stance.  But then it would also make sense to bring back Audience Stance as a reflection of deciding 'not to decide' (which is making a decision) anything that affects play while still participating.

They way I see it, you can either have a long list in keeping with the division of Author and Director Stances or a short list in keeping with having no Audience Stance, but it is awkward and confusing to do both.

Having said all this, I would like to suggest an alternative.  Going for the minimalist approach, I think all of these Stances can be collapsed as Stances into Manipulator Stance and Character Stance.  And then Stance would be about what perspective of "how a person arrives at decisions" in a game, right?  But that just collapses into In-Character Stance and Out-of-Character Stance, anyway.  (Unless someone can make a case for not using a one-to-one correlation,) Forget I said anything.

Fang Langford

¹ As they say, "the exception that proves the rule."

² Wasn't the whole Stances/Modes/Roles thing for communication?  I've said it before and I'll say it again, if the terminology impedes communication, replace it.

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-18 15:11 ]

[lumpley]

Hey All.

Valamir -- precisely.  [X] is any element of the game about which one might make (effective) decisions.  Characters are in a lot of ways the most interesting [X]s, of course.

I may be jumping the gun a teeny bit, but since both Paul and Mike mentioned roles, I'll go ahead.  When the time comes to talk about Player vs. Director, I hope we can start with what Event Resolution methods are available to whom.

Frinstance,  in a conventional game, PC's actions are resolved relatively often by Fortune, and the arbiter / interpreter is another player (specifically, the GM).  NPC's actions are resolved relatively often by Drama -- especially when they happen offscreen -- and the arbiter is the player herself (specifically, still the GM).

I think it'll be especially useful to talk about the (rarely explicit) rules for who arbitrates what.  The choices as I see them are 1. the player herself, 2. some random or arbitrary other player, 3. a particular other player like a GM, or 4. the whole group.  Conventional games use 1. and 3. almost exclusively (as I'm sure you see).

So player mode and director mode, it seems to me, are preset combinations of factors:

Conventional Player mode = Stance relative to only my character + GM arbitration of event resolution + no doubt other things.

Conventional Director mode = Stance relative to everything but players' characters + self arbitration of event resolution + other things too.

But anyway.

-lumpley Vincent

(There, how about if lumpley is an adjective?)

[Mike Holmes]

Well, that was a lumpley response, all right.

Fang, Vincent..uh..I don't get it..

Can we try again? Just summaries.

Mike

[lumpley]

Fang,

Director Stance is clearly exclusive of the In-Character approach and if we recognize the only difference between it and Author Stance is scope, then it too collapses easily into Out-of-Character terminology.

I think that you can play the weather in character.  I'm not certain, but I think you can.  I can play a dog in character, for sure.  I can probably play an organization or a mob in character.  I admit that the weather is a little iffier.

I'm comfortable replacing Actor/Author/Pawn with In-character/Out-of-character.  That's how I talk about it casually anyway.  But I don't think Director Stance is part of OOC -- I think that Director Stance is a way of talking about what you're IC/OOC about.  Your character, your characters, your part of the game world, the whole game world, whatever.

-lumpley Vincent

[gentrification]

I know this isn't really on-topic, but...

On 2001-10-17 18:16, Jared A. Sorensen wrote:
I told the GM my character was going to grab the wash basin full of water and throw it at the bad guy. The GM told me there wasn't a wash basin -- but there was a chamber pot. I told him I would throw that -- he said it was too heavy.

I think your GM doesn't know what a chamber pot is. I can't imagine one being "too heavy" unless your character is, like, 12 inches high.

[Paul Czege]

I can't imagine one being "too heavy" unless your character is, like, 12 inches high.

I think that because of excessive theft, the castle administration had been forced to bolt the remaining chamber pots to large stone blocks.

Paul

[lumpley]

Mike,

Uh oh.  Do you mean a summary of my actual point, or a summary of the post where I like go off and play with my toys all by myself, but you can watch?

I think you got my actual point, that instead of Director Stance what you really do is adopt one of the other stances toward something other than your character.  Your comment "Worms" seemed right on the money.

As to the latter, the jumping the gun post, all I really mean is that one of the biggest differences between being a GM and being a non-GM is who decides how your characters' actions turn out.  (Specifically, whether another player decides or you decide yourself.)  My goal, again, is to talk about players and GMs, and what the real differences between them are (if there are any).

-lumpley Vincent

[lumpley]

Mike said,

Wouldn't there also have to be some other stances then, though? ... Worms.

I'm not so interested in how you decide what your characters or other game elements do.  There might be two stances, as Fang suggests (I think), there might be a hundred, depending on which parts of the decision are interesting to you.  I'm more interested in which characters and other game elements you gets to make decisions about.

-lumpley Vincent

[Laurel]

There's a lot in this thread that just leaves me sitting in the mud watching the horses gallop by :smile:  Here's what I think was Lumpley's thesis.  If I'm on or off the mark, let me know.

Why would the Director stance be classified as a stance if it is not really a distinct way for a person to determine how the character in question is going to act?  The Director stance relies on the same determining factor (their own personal, non-character priorities) as Author/Pawn. The only difference is that the player is manipulating the gaming environment in some way, adding in people/places/things that allow them to achieve their meta-game goal rather than them using their character directly as the tool for achievement?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

IIUC the key to the Stances is the character.  Director may be an outgrowth of AUthor stance, but the reason they are two separate stances is how they relate to the PC.

Author Stance:

Player:  "I look at the ceiling.  Is there a chandlier?"

GM:  "Yes, there is."

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandlier."



Director Stance:

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandlier."


In the second instance the player in author mode has decided that it would be cool to swing from the chandlier, regardless of what the character wants but they didn't not want it so we can set aside the Pawn mode for the purpose of this discussion.  The difference between the first instance and the second is the player was able to put a chandlier in the room without consulting the GM.  It's there because the player says so because he wants his character to swing from it.  If the GM had said there was no chandlier, the player would have to rethink his action.  But in director stance, this is an unnecessary step.  He can create the chandlier out of thin air and necessity.

On the surface, it looks like director stance is more effecient.  It probably is in some instances but it probably isn't in other instances so that it balances out.

BTW, I'll die of shock if I spelled "chandlier" correctly.  I should use my unabridged dictionary, shouldn't I?

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-18 15:59, Paul Czege wrote:
I can't imagine one being "too heavy" unless your character is, like, 12 inches high.

I think that because of excessive theft, the castle administration had been forced to bolt the remaining chamber pots to large stone blocks.

:wink:

Paul

This was a fantasy game. What if the chamber occupant were an ogre? One that had relieved himself recently.

:smile:

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-18 17:04, pblock wrote:

Author Stance:
Player:  "I look at the ceiling.  Is there a chandlier?"

GM:  "Yes, there is."

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandlier."

Director Stance:

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandlier."

Player: There is a chandelier in the room.

What is that? Just creating something not at all in relation to the character.

I gotta know, because the players in Universalis do that as much as anything else.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Lumpley wrote:

Fang wrote:

Director Stance is clearly exclusive of the In-Character approach and if we recognize the only difference between it and Author Stance is scope, then it too collapses easily into Out-of-Character terminology.

I think that you can play the weather in character.  I'm not certain, but I think you can.  I can play a dog in character, for sure.  I can probably play an organization or a mob in character.  I admit that the weather is a little iffier.

And just as I pointed out in my footnotes, these seem rare enough for them to the exceptions that rather enforce the sense of there being some structure to it, right?  I mean, if you are playing the weather or the mob, as a character, aren't you doing something kinda unconventional for a role-playing game?

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-18 18:24 ]

[Mike Holmes]

I mean, if you are playing the weather or the mob, as a character, aren't you doing something kinda unconventional for a role-playing game?

Warning: Plug follows.

Happens in Universalis all the time. We even have a rule for making mobs and the like. OTOH, Universalis is not the typical game; you're right there Fang.

Mike

[Le Joueur]

pblock wrote:

IIUC the key to the Stances is the character.  Director may be an outgrowth of Author Stance, but the reason they are two separate stances is how they relate to the PC.

Author Stance:

Player:  "I look at the ceiling.  Is there a chandelier?"

GM:  "Yes, there is."

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandelier."



Director Stance:

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandelier."

Now I might be a bit off here, but as memory serves, you've gone completely beyond the definitions.

Let me try it with your examples, as I understand it.

Actor Stance:

Player:  "I look at the ceiling.  Is there a chandelier?"

GM:  "Yes, there is."

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandelier."



Author Stance:

Player:  "I jump and swing from the chandelier."



Director Stance:

Player:  "Absothra (an heroic non-player character) jumps up and swings from the chandelier; in a stroke, by the display of his heroism, the tide of the battle is turned."

GM:  "What does your character do?"

Player:  "My character remains unmoving under the table, cowardice is not such a bad thing when you're winning."

That sounds a bit more like what I understand.

In the second instance the player in author mode has decided that it would be cool to swing from the chandelier, regardless of what the character wants but they didn't not want it so we can set aside the Pawn mode for the purpose of this discussion.  The difference between the first instance and the second is the player was able to put a chandelier in the room without consulting the GM.

Which, if I am not mistaken is the difference between Actor Stance and Author Stance.

It's there because the player says so because he wants his character to swing from it.  If the GM had said there was no chandelier, the player would have to rethink his action.  But in director stance, this is an unnecessary step.  He can create the chandelier out of thin air and necessity.

As has been explained to me, in Author Stance the chandelier is created to accentuate whom the character is.  In Director Stance, its creation reflects the control the player exerts over the narrative beyond their character and their character's presence in the game.

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-10-18 18:30 ]