Further on Stances

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

If the following is the source of the problem, then I can solve it quickly.

"Now it is Director stance to have the crate fall and author stance to have the target be hit by the falling crate it seems to me."

They are both Director stance. Author stance by definition is expressed in the actions of the character.

The problem with the Rumux example is that the word "stumbles" leaves the active agent ambiguous (horse or terrain). It would probably not be ambiguous in actual play.

Therefore we can nix the interpretation quoted above right now.

With any luck, that puts us all back in bed together again.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

They are both Director stance. Author stance by definition is expressed in the actions of the character.

But the target is a character. You stated that any character counts. When you say "the character", I assume that you would include the target then, no?

BTW, the "active" thing bugs me too. I'm not sure what the purpose of that definition is. If the terrain can trip the horse, isn't that active? In fact if you have anything do anything isn't that active? Or is Active a description of the object? If so are robots active (we know that horses are, apparently)? How about machines? What's the point of the distinction?

I feel lost. I must be lost.

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-26 14:30 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

The tricky issue is the distinction between A character and THE character. If you think about it, it really is a big distinction in role-playing and not just semantics. Granted, THE character doesn't have to be yours. But in any role-playing circumstance, there are a set of characters with "THE" plastered on their heads and everyone else who has "A" plastered on their heads. (And some of the THE's may be NPCs, although it's often problematic when disagreements arise about this.)

This is exactly one of those crucial unspoken issues of role-playing, just like my Initiation Etc point, which people "learn" by exposure and participation, often in dysfunctional ways, rather than actively discuss and understand.

Anyway, as I tried to state at one point, Rumux the horse is not a character unless he has a THE on his head. Until then, he's just furniture that can run, and anything he does is Director Stance.

And I furthermore repeat that "Rumux stumbles," as an isolated statement, CANN0T be classified as to Stance without further context. So don't sweat that one - you're lost because the statement is lost, not the terminology or ideas.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

One other thing: "target" is a VERY problematic term for what we're discussing. It is easily misread as "the AFFECTED entity in the game-world" rather than "the MOVING/ACTING/DOING entity in the game-world."

I don't know if "entity" is any good, but it doesn't carry the misleading ambiguity of "target."

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-26 14:53 ]

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-26 14:45, Ron Edwards wrote:
And I furthermore repeat that "Rumux stumbles," as an isolated statement, CANN0T be classified as to Stance without further context. So don't sweat that one - you're lost because the statement is lost, not the terminology or ideas.

Nope. I understand your point about that example. Forget that and focus elsewhere for a second. I believe I am lost at least in part because I don't ever see any THE floating above any character's head. Are you saying that this is what indicates an "Active" element? You've got me so thoroughly confused now, I can't even respond coherently. And not for a lack of trying. Is this really still worth trying to save?  I don't know, maybe it is and I've just suddenly become dumb.

Could you restate the current definition of the Stances again so we can start over? Part of the problem is trying to see whether or not you agree at all or in part with the other definitions that have been floating about. Or maybe we should just shoot it in the head...

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-10-26 14:45, Ron Edwards wrote:
One other thing: "target" is a VERY problematic term for what we're discussing. It is easily misread as "the AFFECTED entity in the game-world" rather than "the MOVING/ACTING/DOING entity in the game-world."

I don't know if "entity" is any good, but it doesn't carry the misleading ambiguity of "target."

I used Target to mean the character that was being hit with the crate in the example you gave since I don't seem to remember him having a name. Does that clear anything up? Probably not.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Mike,

Well, maybe part of the problem is that everyone's posting so fast and furiously that the distinctions between definitions, suggestions, objections, and developments are too blurry.

On a personal note, I have a lot to deal with both here on the Forge and elsewhere (in case you haven't noticed, Gamism is getting a good kicking again). Why don't we call a bit of a halt, people who want can go over both the essay and the various threads that have sprung up about it, and points can be underlined or crossed off as seem appropriate.

I think I'd certainly benefit from it. Remember, the essay brought some stuff INTO focus for me by writing it, as well as revealed long-standing connections that were solid. I could use a bit of reflection about the overall points and issues raised rather than continuously riding the wave-front of whatever got said last. I know that I won't be rejoining the discussion until tomorrow at the earliest.

Sometimes, that mid-afternoon cookies + juice + nap from kindergarten seems like it's still a good idea.

Best,
Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Damn it anyway,

One more post and then I really will go away for a day or two.

Hey Mike,

The guy who got hit with the crate is Ugly Pig Bob. Also, in that example, Director Stance was exercised ON THE CRATE, NOT ON UGLY PIG BOB, in order (1) to put it over UPB in the first place and (2) to drop it on him.

See, that's part of the problem too. People know that if my character Pete kicks Ugly Pig Bob in the balls, that's Author or Actor Stance regarding MY CHARACTER.

Now just put me, the player, next to the other player named Julia, with her character Sally. This time, I tell Julia, "Have Sally kick him in the balls!" and she does - in this case, it's STILL Author or Actor Stance, on my and Julia's parts, regarding SALLY.

Same goes for Director Stance, if instead of a character of importance to me or anyone else kicking UPB in the balls, someone exercises the right to drop a duck on him from above (or have his bandolier suddenly spontaneously combust, or whatever). The Stance is operating on the duck or the bandolier.

One more point: the duck or bandolier could easily be replaced by Servant Smith, who has stood idly by through the other examples. Servant Smith is merely one of a dozen relatively uninteresting servants, and - I shall say - not one player nor the GM cares if he lives, dies, or becomes undead. So therefore, if I or Julia state, using whatever game mechanic is available including Drama, that Servant Smith kicks Ugly Pig Bob in the balls, THAT IS DIRECTOR STANCE.

Best,
Ron

[random]

One more point: the duck or bandolier could easily be replaced by Servant Smith, who has stood idly by through the other examples. Servant Smith is merely one of a dozen relatively uninteresting servants, and - I shall say - not one player nor the GM cares if he lives, dies, or becomes undead.

Ron,

Let's see if I've got this straight.

It sounds like what you are doing is categorizing all characters in the game world as being either "major" or "minor" characters.  "Major" characters are those which are somehow significant:  player characters, GMCs who are integral to the story or important to PCs, etc.  "Minor" characters are basically window dressing.  They exist; they can do things; but they don't really matter to anyone.

Also in the game world are "objects", or "entities", or whatever you want to call them:  basically, everything that exists in the game world.  Casks of gold, chandeliers, space ships, whatever.

So, what you're saying is that what I'm calling minor characters are a subset of "objects" -- in other words, you're really dividing "stuff in the game world" into the categories of "Significant characters" and "everything else".  Servant Smith is in the "everything else" category, and has exactly the same level of importance as a box of dishes.

Then, given this distinction, you're saying that ACTOR and AUTHOR stance pertain directly to a significant character; and DIRECTOR stance pertains to everything else.

Is that right?

Cheers,

rnd

[contracycle]

An idea for determining target: whatever the camera would be showing in a movie.

Where the crate falls on UPB, the camera would cut to the crate to show it teetering, to show the fall.  Therefore, as the object "in focus" at that moment, it is the active element.

[Ron Edwards]

Random and everyone,

You've stated it pretty much as I see it. When we were only talking about players and their specifically-designated characters, no one had much trouble with the idea that Actor & Author Stances were about the actions of those characters, whereas Director Stance was about "actions" (events) of anyone and anything else. Director Stance also applies to things like "That's when I show up," because such statements really twist time and space "around" the character.

(Author and Director Stance, on the other hand, are alike in that they do not rely on CHARACTER knowledge or goals, as viewed from "inside" the character.)

OK, so nothing I'm saying now is changing that. It only acknowledges that people can and do play one another's characters (and with non-character stuff), covertly and overtly, with and without permission, all the time. It also acknowledges that players and GMs alike often designate certain NPCs as "important" and treat them as such, just as they would treat their own characters.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm. If I have a crate fall on Sally's character (say we're playing SOAP and we know her secret) is that Director or Author? I'm killing her character, and that character is (I think) by your definition a Major or Active or otherwise important character. It seems odd to say that this is just Director stance just because I used a crate as my vehicle of death. What if I have Sally's character cut her own throat? Then it's Author? Or is it Director because she used a knife?

Even better, what if I have Sally's character slip and fall out of the window (happened in the game we played, remember?), is that Director because presumably there was something slippery that was slipped upon? Or because I employed gravity as an unspoken agent? As the rule is written in SOAP, I have power to affect anything except to kill a character until their secret is out. So in this case I'm employing a power that is given to me to specifically affect the character. From a power vantage, that certainly seems like something more related to the character than to anything else.

I can see where your division comes in, I think. But when would this odd construct become useful?

Mike

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Holmes on 2001-10-29 10:05 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Aaarrghh ... (delete expletives and the term "Simulationist" used in a manner not approved at the Forge) (that was a JOKE between Mike and me, so chill out)

When the crate falls, it's Director Stance - the EFFECT of the crate falling could be anything, from Sally's death to Sally's orgasm to Sally's indifference. When Sally cuts her throat, it's probably Author Stance (observing that in Soap play, Actor Stance is rarely used).

As for "slipping and falling," that is just the same as the Rumux example, because the RESOLUTION is getting mixed into the announcement in ways that are specific to Soap and other games with Drama mechanics. To see what Stance is involved, I would have to ask you to explain just what actions are happening - either the floor is slippery and "trips" Sally (Director Stance) or she is a stumblebum and, for all intents and purposes, hurls herself out the window by tangling up her feet (Author Stance).

If this seems excessively narrow, then please note that in any entertainment medium (soap opera is the obvious example, but I maintain ANY medium), it is just these sorts of causal details that have to be established for people to enjoy the story/events.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I can see where your division comes in, I think. But when would this odd construct become useful?

You've summed up this thread for me right there Mike

This is where I see the thread at.

1) it will often be ambiguous determining whether a character is an "a" or a "THE".  However, making this determination is essential to distinguish between Author and Director by the above logic.

2) A lot of this will require mental gymnastics which at the end lead to "does it really matter whether we label it Director or Author?" at which point the usefulness of having two distinct terms is questionable.

3) I don't think you can expand the definition of Author beyond being "My PC" specific AND keep Director as a seperate distinct stance that has any meaning except on a level so finely nuanced as to have zero practical utility.

For those keeping track, thats pretty much been my running theme through many of these discussions.  Theories are great but they also must have practical application.  I will choose practical utility over technically accurate but non functional theory any day.

4) I think for the sake of utility and removing ambiguity there are 2 clear choices.

A) Author Stance refers to using metagame desires to effect MY PC and Director Stance refers to using metagame desires to effect anything else.  This reinforces the traditional divide between PCs and non PCs.

B) Pick one, use it to refer to to using metagame desires to effect anything and scrap the other term which has become superfluous.

[Ron Edwards]

Ralph,

My problem with your point is that, although it is neat and unambiguous, we have just chucked out a huge amount of actual in-play activity. People do play one another's characters with "my character" status in terms of importance. People do twist time/space/events "around" characters, their own and others.

Carefully delineating what a player may do regarding his or her own character vs. everyone and everything else would be a fine solution. Unfortunately, I think that it is grossly artificial relative to actual role-playing.

Again and again lately, I think a lot of people are tagging certain terms or concepts "arbitrary" or "irrelevant" because those things are not especially useful in THEIR mode and experience of play. It's time for people to remember that we are talking about role-playing as it exists across our hobby-culture, not as it is done within their own experience and preferences.

Best,
Ron