So, Ben Lehman said this tonight:

"It cleaves to close to the hegemony of one player corresponding to one character only, so much that only one category is made for exceptions, and it is made for all exceptions."

What that means is that the four stances:

Director
Actor
Author
Pawn

Are really kind of hacked together and incomplete. Two of them (Author and Pawn) are really two versions of the same stance. Three of the four assume that a player may only interface the SiS by means of a single agent (i.e., a character). All other (non-character) agents are lumped together into one super-duper vague "Director Stance" category.

Also, the term "stance" is kinda misleading. What is that supposed to mean exactly? "My Actor Stance will defeat your Pawn Stance!"

Anyway, so, let's work from the ground up and discuss the framework of possible agents and limitations involved in manipulating the SiS.

I am going to go ahead and reiterate my position from the discussion Ben brought this up in: The three stances that seem to have grown out of One Player -> One Character are all focused on Justification of Action. That is: each one deals with why you choose to put something into the SIS. As Ben said, Director stance is independent of justification and is basically a catch-all term for agents other than the Player Character. As such Director Stance is a misnomer because it does not deal with Justification. In fact i would suggest that Director "stance" is really an application of one of the other three Stances.

There was a discussion about this: Is Director Stance Real? back in 2001 which i found very informative.

Anyway, i think that we would benefit from classifying things on a matrix of Justification and Agent. Though in all honesty there may not be a need to classify Agents at all... So i guess i would suggest that there are three stances:

Actor - Deciding based on SIS justification regardless of non-SIS considerations.

Author - Deciding based on non-SIS considerations while providing SIS justification.

Pawn - Deciding based on non-SIS consideratons without a SIS justificaton (i am not sure if this indicates that there is a specific non-SIS justification or not).

Director Stance is just a red herring!

Thomas

As far as Thomas's breakdown of Justifications, I think that's pretty reasonable.

I wouldn't necessarily say that we don't need to classify what he calls "agent." I'm not sure if agent is a good term, but we can use it for now, as well as "have agency over" being a term for having an agent in the SIS.

(I call this Authority in Polaris, but that has another meaning here.)

So, in this case, we can say that in most traditional play, the GM has Agency over nearly all the SIS, with the exception of the the PC's conscious decisions, intentions, and emotional state, over which the respect players have agency. Right?

In fact, as I see it now, agency maps pretty directly to credibility. As in, you are said to have agency over things that you can likely make a credible statement about.

Do we want / need to divide up agency distribution methods into classifications?

yrs--
--Ben

Hi Paganini,

The GNS and other Matters essay says explicitly that Pawn is just a special case of Author stance. This isn't news.

The term "Stance" is a metaphore for the ideological position the player takes before making a given decision of play.

Actor - the player asks "what would this character do?"

Author - the player asks "what do I want this character to do?"

Director - the player asks "what do I want to happen?"

I think the three stances are fully adequate to categorize all decisions in play, relative to any character or element. We just have to understand that stance is separate from control.

I'm taking the concept of Control from Universalis, where, at a given moment, different players can control the right to speak and declare for given elements of the story (from characters to locations to props etc.) When a player has control, he has final say on decisions for an element. _How_ he makes that decision is determined by stance.

Traditional play normally restricts every player except the GM to controlling one element - the PC. The stances do not require this restriction, it's just an assumption we bring from common rulesets. (And perhaps Ron made this assumption when writing about them the first time).

In traditional play, the GM can take Actor, Author, or Director stance for multiple characters (though usually not the PCs), and may even mix and match to formulate events for the SIS. In less traditional games, like HeroQuest and Trollbabe, you'll see every player having some control over more than one character.

Just separate stance from control and your concern is answered.

Thomas's of Agency made me take a good look over my own assumptions about what can and can't be done in an RPG. Despite my instincts, I must conclude that acting through an agent (whether your character, another character, or a suddenly introduced falling anvil) is not the only way to effect the SIS.

A player could say "The Red Claw should die by the end of this scene, it's a dramatic imperative", and if the other players accept that then it's now a part of the SIS. That seems pretty agent-free to me. Does it fit in with Stances as we understand them?

TonyLB wrote: A player could say "The Red Claw should die by the end of this scene, it's a dramatic imperative", and if the other players accept that then it's now a part of the SIS. That seems pretty agent-free to me. Does it fit in with Stances as we understand them?

So Director (under these questions) is any time you effect the SIS by... effecting the SIS? Doesn't that mean that Director encompasses both Actor and Author? Or do you exclude them by definition?

First, at the risk of drifting from the topic I want to touch on Tony's point. Is an agreement for something to happen later actually an input into the SIS or is it a modification of Social Contract? I am not sure...

Second, Alan, you make an excellent point that Stance is not a matter of control but a matter of how you make a given decision. Unfortunately, I believe that your own definitions are non-exclusive. The difference between "what do I want to happen?" and "what do I want my character to do?" is completely artificial and, as I see it, exactly what started this thread. Due to the focus on One Player -> One Character we have generated a seperate Stance (Director) which does not deal with how one makes decisions but rather what one makes decisions about.

As things stand in the Provisional Glossart all four stances begin their definitions with "The person playing a character..." again evidencing a focus on One Player -> One Character.

Again, I would say that Author/Actor/Pawn Stances are used to reference how a decision is made while Director Stance is used to reference what a decision is made about. This disconnect, especially if tied to the idea that Stances are exclusive (i.e. at any given moment you are using only one), makes Stances as a whole far less useful than they would be otherwise.

You are also correct in pointing out that Pawn is a subset of Author, thanks for the reminder. So I am going to return to my earlier proposal. If Stance is an indicator of how you make a decision then one way to classify them is one what information you consider while making the decision. Actor Stance utilizes in-SIS information only for decision making while Author (and Pawn) Stance(s) utilize non-SIS information.

Does the above make sense to anyone else, or am I just off in my own little dream world?

Thomas

Hello,

As things stand in the Provisional Glossart all four stances begin their definitions with "The person playing a character..." again evidencing a focus on One Player -> One Character.

LordSmerf wrote: If Stance is an indicator of how you make a decision then one way to classify them is one what information you consider while making the decision. Actor Stance utilizes in-SIS information only for decision making while Author (and Pawn) Stance(s) utilize non-SIS information.

Ron,

Two points, one rather minor, and one more significant (to me at least).

One, is it possible for a player to be playing something other than a character? What if I have the "Director Role" or something and all I deal with is scene framing and setting and camera angles and whatever? Is that a valid option or would you say that that is just another form of character? Alternatively, would you say that you are using a different definition of character than I am which is broader in scope?

Two, given the above I assume that you would say that I misunderstand Stances in my claim that Actor/Author/Pawn are about why you make a decision while Director is about what you make a decision about. If so could you point me in the right direction? Your post has a somewhat exasperated edge so I assume that this has been discussed to death, but I have not seen the threads in which it has.

Thanks.

Oh, and Tim, I can see where you are coming from. I think I agree with you.

Thomas

Well, Ron, the definitions may be as you describe them, in logical terms.

In practical terms, the definitions are problematic! If this thread and the discussion-to-death of Stances in the past (that LordSmerf suggests exists) is any indication, then the definitions in the essay and provisional glossary fail to communicate the meaning that they contain.

Now, personally, I find it problematic that all three Stances require that the person be playing a character, creating confusion with the common usage of the term (a personlike entity that is able to take actions in the imaginary space). Apparently, according to Provisional Glossary, "a character" is any entity which may perform actions in the imaginary space. If this is the (needlessly obfuscatory) meaning intended by the Stance definitions, then it does clarify some issues of stance theory significantly.

However, it doesn't solve the problem that the entire glossary and essay are written circularly, with definitions referring to other terms defined in the same work, when common language ("entity", for instance) would not only suffice but improve.

Hello,

Stance is an ephemeral feature of role-playing. This means two things.

1. It may not be involved at all. Theoretically, if stuff in the SIS is occurring which has nothing to do with whatever a character is doing (or "is") then Stance isn't involved.

However, for instance, most scene framing does refer to characters in some way, and assumes a thing or two about what the characters have just done or are about to do, or what they are perceiving. When it does, then Director Stance is involved, at least in terms of someone providing propositions.

2. Stances in action shift around all the time, both from Stance to Stance and also in terms of who is playing the character. "I show up!" is Director Stance. So is "All right, you're all looking at the dragon-headed ship coming into port." Both of them are usually not acknowledged as "playing characters" by anyone at the table, but they are. Both of them are Director Stance because they move "the world" or immediate environment into a new orientation around the character.

Note that the first utilizes an enormous amount of power about the environmental-SIS in the non-GM player's hands, although (in many cases) that same group would swear to God and his angels that the "GM controls the world."

Note also that the second utilizes an enormous amount of power about the character-SIS in the GM's hands, although (ditto) that same group would similarly swear that "the players control their characters."

So the whole idea that any kind of one-to-one correspondence of player and character exists at all is absurd. Always has been, always will be.

Thomas, now to answer your direct questions.

1. I think that my concept of a character isn't especially broad or unusual. If it's an agent which can be said to move and make decisions in a way that you and I can sympathize with, it's a character. I do think that many "objects" in the game world are characters, and some of them are technically inanimate objects, but these are not that common, and for the most part, it's not a big deal. When I say "the crate full of bat guano falls on your character's head," it's not a character, even if it uses the same roll-to-hit that an NPC would.

2. Here's the very best way to look at Stances that I've been able to figure out. It goes in a little sequence.

a) Start with a character in an immediate environment.

b) Are you talking about the character doing stuff, or the environment doing something to [about, around, for, etc] the character?

If the latter, then it's Director Stance.

If the former, then it's either Author or Actor Stance, and then:

c) if the decision/action is being made strictly from the perspective of the character, usually through excluding certain elements of real-person understanding, then it's Actor Stance.

and:

d) if the decision/action is being made from the perspective of real-person understanding which the character does not share (e.g. the monster is right around the corner), then it's Author Stance.

e) Within Author Stance, if the role-playing additionally includes an in-character justification of the action to "mask" the real-person decision, then we say "Author" (some say "Author/Author"), and if not, then we say "Pawn" (some say "Author/Pawn").

TAKE-HOME POINT

Actor and Author Stances are distinguished from Director Stance because they restrict themselves to character action/decision, rather than environmental ones.

Author and Director Stances are distinguished from Actor Stance because they do not rely on in-character knowledge and perspective for justification.

Best,
Ron

Ah, cross-posted with Shreyas.

Bluntly and simply, we disagree. I consider the plethora of discussion on Stance to be a historical artifact, in that decades of texts and vocabulary for discussing role-playing have left most of us in a haze of confusion and habit. If everyone comes to the discussion with their heads full of this haze, then we can expect the discussion continually to be about clearing it. There's no reason to cite this as evidence that the topic itself is in disarray.

That's my perspective. It is also possible that you are right and that the topic is in disarray, hence we have hazy discussions. Reader's choice.

Your point about tautology belongs in the GNS forum, I think, in a thread of its own.

Best,
Ron

Thanks Ron,

I am going to have to think about this for a bit. I understand what you are saying, but I have this sort of nagging sense that the Stances are disjointed. That is they are somewhat non-intuitive to me.

Again, thank you for your clarification.

Thomas

That's the clearest definition of Stances I've ever seen, Ron. Thanks! For years I was unable to parse the difference between Author and Director stance, and while I grew an idea, the above confirms my understanding was correct.

Nathan, if you see a problem, then what other Stances do you suggest exist? Give me a couple of examples of play events/decisions that don't fit into the current Stances so I can see where you're coming from; as it stands, I have to say I don't see any problem at all with the Stances as they currently exist.

After spending some more time mulling over these ideas I still have a problem. In fact it is still the same one I had at the beginning:

"Stances" as they currently stand seem schizophrenic. That is, they are used to classify things based on two entirely seperate issues. The first Issue is what is being manipulated (this is where you find out if something is Director Stance), the second is why it is being manipulated in this manner (this is the distinction between Actor and Author).

The result is that, by necessity of terminology, we make a distinction between why you do things in-character, but we implicitly state that all environmental manipulation is qualitatively the same regardless of justification. So "it gets dark because this conversation has been going on a while and it is probably night time" is not distinct from "it gets dark because night-time scenes are cool!". Contrast this with the specific distinction between "I attack him because my character would feel insulted and attack" and "I attack him because I like the combat system of this game."

So, it is not that Stances do not work, it is that they create an artificial distinction based on what one manipulates.

Now, it is possible that no one else really considers this to be a big problem in which case I guess I am on my own here. Assuming that anyone agrees with me I would suggest consideration of a fourth "Environmental" Stance which would be manipulaiton of non-character agents strictly following in-SIS justification (i.e. there is a fire burning, so it must be comfortably warm).

I am not entirely sure that such a distinction is useful primarily because it is not common for the Environmental Stance to be restricted. That is, players constantly make suggestions and assumptions in Environmental Stance.

Thomas

I have a question based on the suggested definitions. Suppose I as a player in a Buffy game spend a Drama Point in-game and declare that the demon that had surprised the PCs suddenly hugs one of the characters and says "Max, how you doing?" Now, technically I am controlling a character -- so is this Author stance, just the same as if I had said an action about my own PC? Or is it Director stance because I am controlling something external to my character?

If it is the former, I think this may be different from many people's understanding. i.e. Manipulating NPCs is often viewed as being the same as manipulating environment. However, if it is the latter, then it depends on the ownership of characters and what exactly does "ownership" mean.

It could also depend upon whether the focus was on the demon or on how Max is effected. But I'm not at all sure that it in fact does. Neat question!

John, your question is kind of like asking, "If I'm standing north of Phoenix but south of Juno, am I north or south?" Stance is defined with respect to some player and some character.

So in your example, your declaration is Author Stance with respect to the Demon character, and if you insist on identifying a Stance of that same action with respect to your own PC, it's Director Stance with respect to that character. We don't normally explicitly mention the "with respect to" character because we're usually talking about the Stance of a player's action with respect to the player's (single) PC, or the Stance of a GM's action with respect to an NPC that the GM is focusing on at the moment, and in those contexts it goes without saying who the character in question is.

Of course, whether you have, or how you obtain, the authority and credibility to narrate the demon's or any other character's action is a System issue that's pretty much independent of Stance.

Same reasoning applies if you were playing two PCs. Call them Bob and Ray. You narrate, "Bob attempts to use his axe to smash the lock on Ray's cage." That's actor or author(/pawn) Stance with respect to Bob, and (trivially) director Stance with respect to Ray. North of Phoenix, south of Juno. Does that make sense?

The fact that stance is about the relation between a player's action and the portrayed (fictional) desires and actions of some particular character is also at the heart of the answer to Thomas's question. Once a player's action is judged to have no relationship to a character's desires or actions, there's no more to be said about it as far as Stance (with respect to that character) is concerned.

However, that action can still be looked at in other ways, such as the how-it's-justified variable that Thomas speaks of. If he's suggesting that there's a deep parallel between Actor Stance actions, and Director Stance actions that are justified entirely by in-game-world causality, I'd say that idea has a lot of merit.

- Walt

Hello,

Walt's answered your question to my satisfaction, John, although my answer would lean more toward the any player and any character position. I have always looked at it this way and have repeatedly had to deal with the very same question, always couched in the mis-reading that Stance is about "my character." It's not.

When I suggest to my fellow player that he play his character in a particular way, then I am hopping into the cockpit with him as co-Author, in Author Stance. It has nothing to do with the character being "his."

Thomas, your fourth Stance is still Director Stance, because "comfortably warm" refers to an effect or potential effect on at least one character.

I really don't see any problem with your having identified the two variables at work in defining Stances. So there're two variables, which just makes me shrug, as I identified them explicitly long ago (this is not the first time I've laid out the a-b-c-etc sequence, not by a long shot). They are two variables with a distinctive and relevant-to-play three-way effect; we call those effects Stances.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Walt's answered your question to my satisfaction, John, although my answer would lean more toward the any player and any character position. I have always looked at it this way and have repeatedly had to deal with the very same question, always couched in the mis-reading that Stance is about "my character." It's not.

Ron Edwards wrote: When I suggest to my fellow player that he play his character in a particular way, then I am hopping into the cockpit with him as co-Author, in Author Stance. It has nothing to do with the character being "his."

Hello,

Um, it's Author Stance for anyone. I don't see where the Director is coming in.

Concrete example:

Bob plays Bartholemew. Sam plays Sebastian.

Bartholemew is fighting six-armed rat-things. Bob announces yet again that Bartholemew will swing his (um) katana at a rat-thing. Sam groans, then says, "He casts his spell of Mighty Doom!"

"Yeah!" says Bob, who for whatever reason happened to have overlooked the spell of Mighty Doom.

I don't see any freakin' Director Stance there. Not a bit. All Author Stance, hell, maybe even Actor if you wanna acknowledge that Bartholemew has the spell "in his head."

What I'm driving at is that any participant may enter any Stance relative to any character in play, limited only by the procedural standards for that particular group. Such a limitation would be imposed upon the concept of Stance, not intrinsic to it. Such limitations are common, but they are a separate issue.

People really make this more complicated than it is.

Best,
Ron

Ron, I think the confusion John is seeing lies here: When Sam takes the step of helping Bob run Bartholomew, he's playing Author or Actor stance relative to Bartholomew; but if we take Walt's explanation correctly, at that moment he is playing director stance relative to Sebastian, because he is influencing aspects of the environment which are beyond Sebastian's control. In that sense, it would be much the same as if he were empowered to state that the orcs attacking them drop their weapons and flee in fear--from Sebastian's perspective, this is director stance, although it's author stance from the perspective of the orcs.

That's where the notion that there's director stance involved when Sam helps Bob run Bartholomew--it lies in Sam's relationship with Sebastian, for whom he is now affecting the environment's relationship to Sebastian rather than Sebastian's relationship to the environment.

Thus the problem appears to be that there is a confusion regarding the stance involved when any player declares actions of a character which is not his own. Whether that character is controlled by another character player or by the referee doesn't seem an acceptable distinction for this. Obviously, it's director stance when the player is directly altering inanimate features of the environment; but what is it when he alters animate features, such as saying that the horse grazes as it waits for him, or the dog comes when he calls, or he suddenly hears a bird call? These seem to be borderline cases, as does the question of identifying stance when a player is making declarations for another player's character.

I'm happy to accept that the example you gave is author stance relative to Bartholomew; at what point do we distinguish manipulation of characters as author stance from manipulation of environment as director stance, and in the Sam and Bartholomew example, why isn't it correct to say that Sam at that moment stands in director stance to Sebastian as he controls Bartholomew? I think that would be less than helpful as a distinction, but it seems to be the one with which Walt and John are wrestling at the moment.

--M. J. Young

Gah! Sam's statement has nothing to do with Sebastian. He is not paying any attention to Sebastian. He has no Stance relative to Sebastian at the moment.

I can't believe anyone has any trouble with this. You guys are going to be talking about whether a player has a stance toward a donkey on the other side of the game-world next.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Gah! Sam's statement has nothing to do with Sebastian. He is not paying any attention to Sebastian. He has no Stance relative to Sebastian at the moment.

I can't believe anyone has any trouble with this. You guys are going to be talking about whether a player has a stance toward a donkey on the other side of the game-world next.

Walt Freitag wrote: Same reasoning applies if you were playing two PCs. Call them Bob and Ray. You narrate, "Bob attempts to use his axe to smash the lock on Ray's cage." That's actor or author(/pawn) Stance with respect to Bob, and (trivially) director Stance with respect to Ray. North of Phoenix, south of Juno. Does that make sense?

From the GNS essay:

In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events.

John,

I think what Ron is saying is that stance is only ever relevant to the character actively being refered to at the time.

So for your Buffy example, you are in author stance with respect to the demon and in absolutely no other stance relative to any other character because the statement is not about any other character, it is about the demon and what it is doing.

Walt's example: you are in author stance with respect to Bob and in absolutely no other stance relative to any other character because the statement is not about any other character, it is about Bob and what Bob is doing.

It might be easier to parse if you think that stance is only ever relevent to the "point of view" character. It's not a matter of objective/subjective - those terms are (as I understand them) a red herring. Stance is always subjective. It only ever applies right here, right now, for this character. It never applies objectively.

To take your Buffy example further:

Suppose I as a player in a Buffy game spend a Drama Point in-game and declare that the demon that had surprised the PCs suddenly hugs one of the characters and says "Max, how you doing?"

Hello,

John, my comments were directed to M.J., not to Walt. Walt's comments were accurate insofar as a person's statement is relevant to more than one character, when and if that happens. James has answered the issue fully and clearly, so I'll just defer to his post.

James, yes, the number of characters involved is another dial, not any particular constraint on the concept.

Best,
Ron

Walt Freitag wrote: Same reasoning applies if you were playing two PCs. Call them Bob and Ray. You narrate, "Bob attempts to use his axe to smash the lock on Ray's cage." That's actor or author(/pawn) Stance with respect to Bob, and (trivially) director Stance with respect to Ray. North of Phoenix, south of Juno. Does that make sense?

Blankshield wrote: Walt's example: you are in author stance with respect to Bob and in absolutely no other stance relative to any other character because the statement is not about any other character, it is about Bob and what Bob is doing.

Blankshield wrote: It might be easier to parse if you think that stance is only ever relevent to the "point of view" character. It's not a matter of objective/subjective - those terms are (as I understand them) a red herring. Stance is always subjective. It only ever applies right here, right now, for this character. It never applies objectively.

Hello,

In my view, imaginary characters vs. imaginary inanimate objects are not wholly 1:1 with Author-Stance objects and Director-Stance objects. That is an enticing idea, but not accurate.

At times, an NPC is basically animate furniture. Alternately, various objects which in reality would be inanimate (or whatever word you like) act as characters, using whatever criteria you like (others' sympathy, conclusive motion/action, etc).

If anyone wants to experience truly ridiculous frustration, do a search on "Ajax" and read any Stance threads that pop up. Stupid horse.

I maintain that Blankshield is correct, but POV is a nebulous way to put it. If anyone has a better way to phrase it, that'd be wonderful to see, but at this point, I consider this non-problematic in practice. When an in-game entity is being treated as a character (and hence moving him/her/it around is Author Stance) and when he/she/it is being treated as an object relative to another character (hence Director Stance) is obvious; it is related, as I see it, to basic issues of what "story" is in the human mind.

John, the example Walt is giving is simply not working. I agree with his basic point, but (a) it's not a fundamental point and (b) the example is merely opening itself up for you to butcher the point.

The relativity Walt is talking about occurs only in the case of having more than one character to deal with. I suggest this happens a lot more than people think (and it certainly is part of GMing most of the time). But it is not fundamental to Stance; a lot of the time people get all hung up because they think Stance must be operating for every participant for every possible or imaginable character or event in play, all the time.

The example with the lock is not helping because Sebastian is still not being involved in the statement. All the action is Bartholemew and the lock. Walt seems to have noticed this with his "(trivial)" parenthetical addition.

A better example of the onesey-twosy relativistic effect that Walt is driving at is this: "Bob uses his axe to smash the lock on Ray's cage. A fragment of metal pierces Ray!"

That is Author Stance for Bob and Director Stance for Ray. And the key is not that the fragment is "an inanimate object," but rather that it is not a character.

Best,
Ron

(If you're really craving the frustration, probably you'll have to search on "rumex" and "jurux" too. Not only was my poor horsie a grief and an irritant, but also nobody remembered his name.)

-Vincent

I think the confusion about stance stems from the fact that stance is only relevent to instances of roleplaying. That is, they articulate the player's relationship to a character in a roleplaying game.

Pleas let me clarify what I mean. In a wargame I might make statements about the terrain, weather, the movement of units, etc. is this director stance? No, because that's a term from roleplaying games that has to do with how you roleplay. To roleplay, there has to be a character that you are playing. If your input to the SIS isn't with respect to a character, then you aren't roleplaying. For example when I write the background for a game setting, I am not roleplaying and so have no stance. When Greg Staffor writes articles about the geography, history and religions of Glorantha that material might be used as the source for a wargame (WB&RM), computer game (KODP) or roleplaying game, it has nothing to do with the act of roleplaying, and hence stance.

Similarly during a game the GM might make up background information, describe objects, etc. If he says 'a statue with a threatening appearance dominates the centre of the room' that statement has no stance, it's not an instance of roleplaying. If he says 'Alyra sees a threatening-looking statue dominating the centre of the room', that has stance (Director) because it's with respect to a character and is an instance of roleplaying.


Simon Hibbs

Ron's quite right, the parenthetical "trivially" was important in that example. So important that it probably shouldn't have been parenthetical. In the Bob and Ray cage-lock-smashing example, we have little reason to involve Ray at all in examining the stance of Bob's narrated action.

(Ray does benefit from Bob's action, and perhaps the player's entire motivation for Bob's action was to benefit Ray. That can be taken into account in judging whether the player's narration of Bob's action might be Author or Pawn stance rather than Actor. But there's still no need to describe the action as having a stance with respect to Ray. As Ron said, all the action is with Bob.)

Let me attempt another better example. Ignatius is attempting to sneak into a cell block to free a comrade. The stealthy incursion is interrupted by the approach of a guard making rounds, and there are no side passages for Ignatius to flee into. Ignatius attempts to hide. The GM asks for a roll on Ignatius' hide ability, and the result is a Great Success that gives (under the system in use) Ignatius's player the right to narrate events.

The player narrates, "So effectively does Iganatius blend into the shadows that the guard is just about to literally stumble over him. Just then a prisoner at the far end of the block, waking up from a nightmare, makes a commotion. The guard stops and turns around, and hurries away toward the sound."

That's a Director stance action as far as Ignatius is concerned. And for most purposes, when we're focusing on the player and the PC as we usually are, that's all we need to say. But we can also say, if we want to get all technical, that the narration of the prisoner's action was (most likely) pawn stance with respect to the prisoner, and that the narration of the guard's action was (most likely) author stance with respect to the guard.

I think this example is consistent with Ron's point:

The relativity Walt is talking about occurs only in the case of having more than one character to deal with. I suggest this happens a lot more than people think (and it certainly is part of GMing most of the time). But it is not fundamental to Stance; a lot of the time people get all hung up because they think Stance must be operating for every participant for every possible or imaginable character or event in play, all the time.

Hiya,

That example would work fine, Walt, if the group has established, or has any interest in establishing, the guard & other prisoner as anything but boundary-setting furniture.

However, if the guard could just as well be a spy-sensor, and if the prisoner could just as well be some kind of malfunctioning household item, and if neither of these has any particular emotional oomph (i.e. "the prison" is not a character, because some prisons/fortresses are), then there is no need to concern oneself with Stance except regarding the stealthy character.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: However, if the guard could just as well be a spy-sensor, and if the prisoner could just as well be some kind of malfunctioning household item, and if neither of these has any particular emotional oomph (i.e. "the prison" is not a character, because some prisons/fortresses are), then there is no need to concern oneself with Stance except regarding the stealthy character.

In the Provisional Glossary, Ron wrote: Stance
The cognitive position of a person to a fictional character. Differences among Stances should not be confused with IC vs. OOC narration. Originally coined in the RFGA on-line discussions; see John Kim?s website for archives. Current usage modified in GNS and other matters of role-playing theory. See Author, Actor, and Director Stance.

Character
A fictional person or entity which may perform actions in the imaginary situation. One of the Components of Exploration.

Hi Chris,

Please check out some past discussions; I found that a search on "jurux rumex" turned up most of the key points.

In one of those threads, I talked about how nominal characters in role-playing have "THE" or "A" plastered on their heads, with "A" characters often promoted to "THE" informally during play.

An "A" character is furniture which may or may not walk and talk (eat, have sex, etc). It is important to the participants in that it may impose barriers or be of logistical interest. It is hardly even a character at all and in fact is only called one because it shares in-game features with the real characters (i.e. being a person and not a desk, for instance).

A "THE" character is important to the participants in terms of his, her, or its ability to have conflicts of interest, rather than merely to impose barriers or open doors, or to provide Color.

Again, none of this has anything to do with "person vs. object" as those terms would apply in reality. Fiction kicks that distinction in the groin. I like to talk about the building in Die Hard, the bottle in The Gods Must Be Crazy, and the balloon in The Red Balloon as characters, for instance, which in this case means "THE" characters along with the human protagonists of those stories.

Some people thought my distinction between "A" and "THE" was problematic and that they couldn't see how the difference would apply during play. I just shrugged, really. The difference is palpable and unmistakable as far as I'm concerned, and always has been in any role-playing I've done or observed.

Best,
Ron

Speaking of shrugging, I guess my bottom line is that the difference between

A player's action with respect to some character X has no stance if X isn't a character whose interests the players are concerned about.

and

A player's action with respect to some character X has a stance, but if X isn't a character whose interests the players are concerned about, that stance is irrelevant.

is orders of magnitude too small to be worth arguing over.

- Walt

Raven,

The current set of stances are an artifact of an outdated and poorly-articulated model. We've learned a lot since Ron wrote the first GNS essay, and yet, the current glossary is using the same definitions.

Now, it's one thing to stick with something that works perfectly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But it's another thing to cling to tradition in the face of progress. But it's not that there are just a few wacky dissidents. The discussion that spawned this thread was spontaneously generated in an IRC chatroom. There were about six of us participating, IIRC, and we all independently voiced similar problems with stance theory. I know Ron's response is that the problem is with our understanding, and not with the material. IMO, this is an unfortunate weaknesses that Ron has: to maintain that the fault is in the (sometimes substantial numbers of) people who see a problem, rather than with the idea, or the text itself.

It's no big deal; everyone is human. But this wasn't just a bunch of noobs mouthing off in that chat room. It was a bunch of experienced designers who have been paying attention to the Big Model for years. This is stuff we think about. "You guys just don't get it" cuts no ice with me in this discussion.

Having said all that, here is my claim:

Current Stance theory is important. It's an eye-opener. But it needs to be used as a starting-point, not an ending point. Right now it's a vague, incomplete mishmash of LP-related concepts trying to float in one boat.

Follow me for a minute. (And, while you're reading, keep in mind that Universalis is the most pure formalization of this process that I've come across. If each RPG is a specific instance of the data-type "RPG," then Unversalis is the meta-definition of that data-type.)

Think of the SiS as a multi-user 3D modeling environment. You've got a bunch of people sitting at their computers, all plugged into the same limitless void. Basically, a network. The users (the players) build and manipulate constructs in this environment. These constructs are analogues for imagined experience. That is, a construct is information that describes and defines some feature of the environment. It could be a denizen (person, creature, etc.), a social system, a geographic feature, a weather pattern, etc.

Now, the basic interface to our environment contains two buttons, a Y(es) button, and a N(o) button. Before any construct is allowed to exist in the environment, every user plugged into the environment has to hit the Y button. If even one user hits the N button, then the construct doesn't exist in the environment. The whole button-pushing process is system. This same system applies to manipulating constructs that already exist in the environment.

The advanced interface to our environments contains many pairs of Y/N buttons organized in a matrix. Along one axis of the matrix is the name of each user plugged into the environment. The other axis of the matrix is a list of all potential inputs (new constructs and manipulations of existing constructs) into the environment. Each pair of buttons can be set to auto Y or auto N, or left inactive (i.e., the user has to manually decide each time that player introduces or manipulates that particular concept) At the bottom of this second axis there's a "default" row for anything that might have accidentally been left out of the list. This "default" row is equivalent to the basic interface described above.

A game text is a definition of presets for this matrix of auto Y / auto N buttons.

Now, here's where we get to stances. The reason stances are problematic is that they deal with several varied aspects of our network, but do not completely identify any of them. Instead, they combine their incomplete versions in a couple of interesting, highly visible ways.

Actor stance and Author / Pawn stance are talking about manipulation. They assume that you already have a construct in the environment that you are preparing to do something with. Specifically, they define your creative process in terms of (A) informational limitation to what your construct would be aware of if it were real, and (B) what your external inclination is, as a user. These definitions are imbalanced.

There are multiple possibilities for informational limitation - "what the construct is aware of" is one specific one. Conversely, "the external inclination of the user" is super vague. It can be many things. Each specific scheme of information limitation can theoretically be combined with each specific user inclination to form a large (limitless, maybe) set of inclination / information pairs. Right now, we have three pairs: two extreme cases (Actor / Pawn) and one combination case (Author).

Director Stance, contrastingly, is not defined in terms of "preparation to manipulate." In fact, Director stance is specifically defined in terms of constructs that are *separate* from the construct that you are manipulating. Director stance assumes that you have a construct in the environment that the other users are "auto Y for manipulation" with respect to you. That is, everyone agrees that you manipulate that construct at will.

Director stance activates an additional row of "auto Y" buttons for creating and manipulating constructs that are spatially related to your existing construct.

Director stance is incomplete in the same way that the other stances are incomplete. There are a whole bunch of "Director-like" stances that are tied to things other than a specific construct. (In fact, it's even worse than that, since Director stance is not just tied to a specific construct, but a specific *type* of construct - a character.)

So, there are Director-like stances that are tied to, say, specific items, animals, ideals, geographical features, etc. There are Director-like stances that are tied to meta-game considerations, like which player paid for the pizza, or where the players are seated at the table.

So, there are a whole lot of unexplored combinations. To summarize, existing stance theory details just a few combinations of members from potentially very large sets. It also lumps two separate sets (manipulation preparation vs. sphere of influence) into one category.

That's why I'm unhappy with the direction this thread has taken. I'm not interested in hearing Ron defend or explain the existing stances. I said up front in my first post that this thread is for pushing the envelope.

Even with that explanation, I'm not convinced. At all, even. In fact, I think it's quite clearly lain out above that the whole problem here is the view that Stances are "tied" to "objects" as they are in your post above. Like I said, I wanted some clear example situations that highlight the specific problems, not a theoretical construct of "how it doesn't work." That's going to go a lot further for me than claims that the structure is flawed without test cases that illustrate the problem(s).

Also, "I think this is wrong. Discuss other options." followed by silence on your part and then "That's not the discussion I wanted, bad thread!" seems to me to be a rather bizzare attitude to have in a situation where it is you[1] that sees a problem and you that wants to expand/change/refocus the current model. It seems as though you want others to do the work here for you. If all you wanted to do was say, "Hey, this doesn't work," then you've said it. Great.

[1] (Regardless of whether "you" is a one-person, or "you" is a group-of-people.)

If you want to push the evelope, push it. Present something more complete than the existing Stances. Obviously, I'm not, because I don't think it's broken, incomplete, or vague. Ron's not going to either, because he thinks the same.

Hmm... I have been thinking some more about Stances. First, let me say that as things stand Stances work. They do what they claim to do. At the same time, I have this feeling (whether right or wrong) that Stances could do so much more. So, it is not that they do not do what they purport to do (that is classify actions with reference to relative Agent and Justification), but that they could be doing a lot more. Unfortunately I am finding it incredibly difficult to articulate this nebulous feeling and thus am not sure that I am able to really present it.

One thing that might help me would be an articulation of what Stance is. Define it, not using examples, but by itself. As things stand my definition is (roughly):

Stances classify manipulations of the Shared Imagined Space by the Agent being manipulated in the space and the reason that Agent was manipulated in that specific manner.

Is that about right?

Thomas

Hello,

I guess that works, although it might be one of those "say it yourself" cases. My "say it myself" for Stance goes something like this:

The degree of separation between player and character necessary for a given input into the SIS, relative to that character.

So Actor Stance has the least degree of separation; the player is using only in-character perspective and only commands the character's actions in the already-agreed-upon, momentarily non-active imaginary environment.

Author Stance has the intermediate position, in which the player is using all available knowledge among himself/herself and the other participants, but still restricting imaginary action to the character's purview.

Director Stance has the highest degree of separation, in which the character's surrounding environment is what has "changed" or "done something. Since the character is not the Active Thing, but rather the object of the environment's action, character knowledge vs. player knowledge is irrelevant.

Does that help at all?

Also, it may be relevant to point out that Stance is only one of many Ephemera, and that it's possible you may be looking for (or hoping to find) some other feature of play that Stance simply isn't about.

Best,
Ron

Now hold on there, Mr. Raven!

(/me rubs hands... wow, it's been ages since I've been able to fight with Raven. We agree way to often these days... ;p )

Also, "I think this is wrong. Discuss other options." followed by silence on your part and then "That's not the discussion I wanted, bad thread!" seems to me to be a rather bizzare attitude to have in a situation where it is you[1] that sees a problem and you that wants to expand/change/refocus the current model. It seems as though you want others to do the work here for you. If all you wanted to do was say, "Hey, this doesn't work," then you've said it. Great.

greyorm wrote: Even with that explanation, I'm not convinced. At all, even. In fact, I think it's quite clearly lain out above that the whole problem here is the view that Stances are "tied" to "objects" as they are in your post above. Like I said, I wanted some clear example situations that highlight the specific problems, not a theoretical construct of "how it doesn't work." That's going to go a lot further for me than claims that the structure is flawed without test cases that illustrate the problem(s).

If you want to push the evelope, push it. Present something more complete than the existing Stances. Obviously, I'm not, because I don't think it's broken, incomplete, or vague. Ron's not going to either, because he thinks the same.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

I guess that works, although it might be one of those "say it yourself" cases. My "say it myself" for Stance goes something like this:

The degree of separation between player and character necessary for a given input into the SIS, relative to that character.

So Actor Stance has the least degree of separation; the player is using only in-character perspective and only commands the character's actions in the already-agreed-upon, momentarily non-active imaginary environment.

Author Stance has the intermediate position, in which the player is using all available knowledge among himself/herself and the other participants, but still restricting imaginary action to the character's purview.

Director Stance has the highest degree of separation, in which the character's surrounding environment is what has "changed" or "done something. Since the character is not the Active Thing, but rather the object of the environment's action, character knowledge vs. player knowledge is irrelevant.

Does that help at all?

Also, it may be relevant to point out that Stance is only one of many Ephemera, and that it's possible you may be looking for (or hoping to find) some other feature of play that Stance simply isn't about.

Best,
Ron

Oooh! New thread, Thomas, new thread!!

Can we identify meaningful and necessary distinctions among what is now called 'Director Stance'?

I totally want to see this discussed, and we need a new thread for it.

Best,
Ron

Paganini wrote: (/me rubs hands... wow, it's been ages since I've been able to fight with Raven. We agree way to often these days... ;p )

In the first place, it's not me that sees a problem and me that wants change. It's about 6 - 10 guys who asked me to get the ball rolling with this thread.

So, my role in this thread is basically to watch and see what comes out.

What kind of new ground can we cover? New ground is not covered by posts that A) attack the validity of the thread's existence in the first place, or B) are hung up on explaining the old theory to people who don't understand it yet.

(Besides, didn't you read Chris's recent thread? Slow posting is good. I have *read* every post here. I just don't bang out a reply the instant some poster's comments make an emotional tug.)

So, read my post again. I did, in fact, present something more complete, and something new. For example, I outlined a whole bunch of Director-like stances that are not defined in relation to character.

Hello,

Closed, please. New threads have been spawned, and if you wanna keep anything else in this one, please spawn it.

Best,
Ron