People play RPGs for different reasons (hence GNS and all that stuff). Most of us alternate or combine from time to time, even within a session.

The deal is that I am absolutely fascinated by Director Stance. I've been toying with ideas for a game that does it, and I've enjoyed Inspectres quite a bit (despite the lack of art, *wink-wink*). But after all this talk of Director-stance combat and my own (limited) play-experience, I have to ask, is there a challenge for the characters in Director-stance play? I think that some players may create them, but the challenges are artificial, as one could simply elimate the problem to some degree (or completely) when he's "got the conch." Clinton's Donjon revision looks like it provides some challenge, but also like it could get into a picking-match between player and GM...

So is there--can there be--a challenge in combat (or other conflict...) in DS play?

If not, that's fine...it doesn't NEED a challenge per se, as it has different goals...but what if I want to make a game that does both? Can it be done? How?

Jake

Also a big fan of directorial stance, I can say it works out very well. Having played Donjon through its various incarnations, being able to declare something does not necessarily "finish" the fight. Many times were we hard pressed and only creative use of our declarations helped us. I'd say in games such as Inspectres, the challenge isn't "are we going to win?" but "How cool can we pull this off?"

Playing Dread and RoS both, I invoked a bit of directorial power to make for simply cooler fight scenes, by asking questions like"Is there a barrel I can kick at him?" "If there's a ceiling fan, I lift him up so his head gets caught in it!", which did not finish the fight, but made it much more cinematic.

Donjon does it exceptionally well, since you can choose to take your successes for damage, bonuses for later, or to state facts, so you have to strategize as to how to divvy them up.

In the old version of Octane(that uses the Inspectres rules), we had a blast without players overdoing their boundaries of power. The unspoken social contract limited the power to being related to the skill/action being rolled for. Hence, you could fight in a way that impressed someone else, but it wouldn't be the same as if you simply made a social roll and got that great roll.

I think the boundaries must either be explicit in the rules, or with a solid social contract. Of course, if you're worried about abuse, look at all the idiots who ruin games even with detailed and explicit rules.

Also, part of the challenge is that you can also take player stated facts and alter them as part of your directorial power, thereby turning the tables.

"My sword runs the Duke through, and he slumps in his 'throne'"
"'Well played! I never thought you'd get as far as to slay my double!' You spin to see the Duke standing behind you with a loaded crossbow and armed men! 'I knew about your little plans far in advance! The damsel in distress is always the best spy!' he says as he cradles Lady Tierre at his side..."

Since the player stated it, they forget that all they stated is all they get. Anything can be added to it, which can often totally alter the situation. :)

Chris

Jake Norwood wrote: Clinton's Donjon revision looks like it provides some challenge, but also like it could get into a picking-match between player and GM...

So is there--can there be--a challenge in combat (or other conflict...) in DS play?

Hello,

People often overrate the Director Stance issue. They forget that normal, plain old, traditional role-playing includes a great deal of Director stance, it's just not perceived as special. Haven't you ever said, during play, "And that's when I show up!" and have the GM say, "Yeah!" How about, "Oooh! How about if I'm right under her, so she falls into my arms!" and the GM says, "Yeah!"

It really is that easy; happens all the time.

Both of those examples include a power-sharing, albeit usually negotiated at the moment rather than explicit in the rules. People often confuse the event of Director stance, which is an in-play behavior, with the explicit power to use it, which is a design/rules issue.

My concern is that people see it as all-or-nothing. "Director stance," they worry, must mean, "Player has GM-style power over all aspects of play, at his discretion." This is a matter of flip-flop, crisis-based thinking - extrapolate a definition to its most extreme or non-modulated application, and then take that use to be the definition itself.

It doesn't have to be that hard. Really, it happens all the time, and it's easy. All the stances are socially modulated and permitted under shared, negotiatory circumstances. Games that are explicit about permitting such things (poster child: Extreme Vengeance) are also explicit about their parameters.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Games that are explicit about permitting such things (poster child: Extreme Vengeance) are also explicit about their parameters.

...y'know, I think I finally clicked with Director Stance, and also with why I wasn't clicking with it before. The latter first..

Director Stance is natural for me. I wasn't clicking with what it meant because I was trying to add more meaning to it than what was there. Somehow, my mind was rejecting it because it couldn't believe that it was that elementary.

I think I'm also understanding the problems I have with "traditional" gamers. *I* think that it should be quite simple for my stalker with a sneak bonus of +9 to sneak up toward the campfire, snag a bit of food, and sneak back to where she was keeping watch for enemies without the other party members noticing her. No big deal, no one is affected, and I get to have a little bit of fun, right? Wrong. I have to make the roll, so that the rest of the party can roll to see if they notice me.. For what? Gamist balance? Pshaw.

Or, when my players are always asking me "is there <fill in the blank> here?" and I answer "Uh, sure, why not?" My philosophy on letting players determine parts of the scene is: Do you want it? Does it fit? Is it plausible? If the answer to all 3 questions is yes, then GO FOR IT. (For sillier games, the standards thereon are a bit more lax, such as a Marvel Super Heroes game I played while on deployment in Korea..). For example:

Player: Are there coathangers in the closet?

GM: (Do you want it? Does it fit? Is it feasible?) Um.. sure.

((I dun' remember who mentioned that particular example previously, but it's exactly what I'm talking about.)) Likewise, Chris's example with the barrel and the ceiling fan. Do you want it? Does it fit? Is it feasible? GO FOR IT. Kick that barrel into the badguy. Lift that.. demon?.. whatever, lift it into the ceiling fan.

I think Ron's gonna beat his head against the wall on this one. He spends all this time and effort telling people "No, no. It's much simpler than that. You're overcomplicating the idea." And here I come along and say "You mean it's that simple?"

::trundles off, a much happier gamer::

Hey Lance,

Thunk! Thunk! Thunk!

But then again, you're trundling off happier, right? So it's all good.

My only minor point is that Director stance may or may not include Fortune (dice etc) mechanics; that would be a separate issue.

Best,
Ron

My only minor point is that Director stance may or may not include Fortune (dice etc) mechanics; that would be a separate issue.

Jake, Mike is right about "riding the edge of protagonism." Most games that have explicit rules for Director stance are intended to facilitate Narrativist play, in which the expectation is that the players will not seize every opportunity to resolve and defuse conflicts and move their characters closer to their ultimate goals, because that would sabotage story; Clinton's Donjon is an exception, and the "picking match" that you mention seems to me to be very much the point of the game--it's a Gamist game, after all, and the rules are designed to encourage GM-vs.-player Directorial duels.

Lance, sorry to take the wind out of your epiphany's sails, but I don't see how having to roll for a sneak attempt has anything to do with Director stance. That's an issue related to task resolution and its metagame context. If the other players and/or the GM felt that letting you succeed automatically would violate what Fang would call their "Sine Qua Non," or if they were in a Simulationist mode and felt that it was important to resolve events according to the "realistic" probabilities, then letting you get away without rolling would be a bad thing. In any case, it sounds as though you were in Actor stance at the time.

Boy, there are things scattered all 'round this thread which are going off the rails.

Let's see ...

First, I think that Seth's description of Narrativist play is kind of hair-raising, but I'll put that down to the difficulties inherent in talking about "story" in role-playing. The hair-raising part concerns "not taking advantage of things because that would hurt the story," which does not work for me at all. In Narrativist play, taking advantage of things, furthering one's character's purposes, and so on, are the story. It's hard for me even to grasp what Seth's statement is about, let alone whether it addresses Jake's question.

But anyway, as I say, I'll chalk that one up to semantics.

Second, Seth is totally right about Lance's point regarding the sneaking-up business. Lance did nail the whole Director stance thing when it came to inventing objects into existence, but it seems to me that in the sneak-example he's confounding Director stance with Drama resolution (and who gets to have that privilege).

Oh well. I think a lot of people confuse Director stance with "power to resolve things the way I want," which is not what it is. I think that examining that error will reveal the source of Jake's question as well, and ... well, that's about all I have to say about this thread.

Best,
Ron

As I commonly use Director stance, it gives players control over the details of the setting or the timing of their entrance onto the stage.

For example, if I describe a scene featuring a spit-spattered bar with the walls painted black, tables and stools bolted to the floor, a flickering Miller light on the wall, and a bunch of tough-looking biker types shooting pool, and a fight breaks out, I don't want or need a player to ask me whether there's a handy bottle to break over a biker's head. As far as I'm concerned, he can -- and should -- just declare he's grabbing a bottle or beer mug and lashing out with it. Given the context of my example, it wouldn't be unreasonable for someone to go for a shotgun hidden behind the bar.

The more extensive Director stance I've experimented with lets a player suggest the next scene or add details to a scene in progress wherein the player's character is offstage. Works like a charm and -- to my delight -- frequently catches me off guard.

Best,

Blake

Gah! Oh well. Back to the drawing boards..

I suppose that I did rather assume that Director Stance is "the power to resolve things the way I want"... I mean, isn't that what a Director does? Are we talking less about Scene Directorship than Stage Directorship, or does it cover both, but in different ways than I'm grasping here?

Hmm.. Are those useful terms for defining Director Stance, d'you think? In case they are, let me quickly elaborate on what I'm thinking.

Scene Director: While the "script" is mostly out of their hands, they are able to mold events and happenings to occur a certain way, either because it makes a better story, a more poignant scene, or it reveals or conceals certain things that the Director wants revealed/concealed.

Stage Director: decides what is available "on the set" for use by the "cast" of characters during the scene. This can be on-the-fly "There's a barrel here!" or pre-set during Scene Framing "The common room has X number of tables, with several people seated at each one of them, etc." and "Okay, well, I don't want to sit at one of the tables, because they're crowded, so I'll sit on one of these barrels over here."

Both of these roles I see as fitting into described instances of Director Stance. From what I understand, the limitations of Director Stance (not including anything covered by a specific group's Social Contract) are entirely based in what has been decided before. If the scene has been set as being crowded by the GM, the player cannot come back and use Director Stance to declare that the room is nearly empty, but they can say that most of the people are women, and all the guys are ugly, because this fact has not already been nailed down.

So, am I still on the right course, or is my ship destined the West Indies when I want to go to India?

Hey Ron,

Is it accurate to say that any decision a participant makes about in-game-world events that does not represent a decision made by that participant's own player-character is an instance of Director stance?

This seems simple, but I've never seen it put that way.

(One necessary nuance: direct execution results of resolution mechanisms, such as whether a character makes a perception check or how many successes an attempted action receives, are not "decisions a participant makes" and so do not represent Director stance, or any stance at all. This is in contrast to the decisions a participant makes in narrating the events after a fortune in the middle resolution, which are usually Director stance.)

If a player says, "This is a bar so there should be bottles everywhere, right?, so I pick one up and throw it" it seems like it could be Director stance or not, depending on how serious the player is about that little "right?" check. If this is shorthand for: "I decide unless overruled that there is a bottle within reach, so my character picks it up and throws it," the first part is a director stance decision. But if it's shorthand for: PLAYER: "My character looks around. Does he see a bottle nearby?" GM (implies by silence): "Yes." PLAYER: "Then I pick it up and throw it." -- then, that's all Actor stance for the player because it's the GM making the actual decision about the bottle.

- Walt

Hey,

Sometimes, people can talk themselves into circles.

Walt wrote,
"Is it accurate to say that any decision a participant makes about in-game-world events that does not represent a decision made by that participant's own player-character is an instance of Director stance?"

From my essay, Director stance occurs when
".... 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. Therefore the player has not only determined the character’s actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters."

Now, I'm pretty certain that those say pretty much the same thing. If the rope snaps, that's Director stance. If the horse is waiting, saddled, beneath the upstairs saloon window, that's Director stance. If the two fleeing player-characters' paths cross ... etc. You get it. It's what GMs do almost all the time and what players do some of the time.

I do not think we will get very far with the existence of the bottle discussion. It's lacking certain contexts, especially the social one of approval vs. permission on the part of the GM.

Lance, I like your Scene Director and Stage Director subdivisions. They make a lot of sense. Can you see that neither has anything to do with resolving a conflict? Hence, nothing to do with "resolving things the way I want"?

Even the Scene Director doesn't get to resolve things; that is about setting up things.

Resolution is a matter of Drama, Fortune, and Karma. It doesn't have much to with Stance at all, as a concept, although in application they are occurring simultaneously.

Best,
Ron

Jake,

I'm starting a new post because I want to get to your essential question. I think it's related exactly to what Lance stumbled over - the idea that Director stance includes resolving power above and beyond the usual elements of the game system.

It does not. However, I can see why people think it does. As I've said before, a role-player who is used to late-80s Simulationist systems (Champions 4th edition, GURPS, Rolemaster, any BRP game of that era) and their heirs (Vampire, any AEG game) associates Director stance with "interfering" into the system. Most such interfering is a matter of Drama methods (sometimes disguised as "role-playing"), being privileged in one way or another to say, "Ah, screw the dice, it happens thus-and-such."

Some of these game texts even provide the GM with this *Power* explicitly, with the proviso that the players never, never (sshhhh) find out.

Hence: when I describe Director stance, the usual example that springs to mind is the GM fudging the outcomes or simply bypassing the system altogether by using Drama. In some groups, this privilege is shared a bit, much in the way that I drifted Champions - permitting props to spring into existence as needed, permitting people to knock out foes when the moment seemed right and the player called attention to that "moment," and so on. But that's as far as people take it, and they mistake this one application, this one type of Director stance, for the definition itself ... hence, they think that Director stance removes what is usually considered the challenge and uncertainty of play.

And it doesn't, necessarily. Again, the game to see is Extreme Vengeance. In that game, characters have an attribute called Coincidence, which when used, brings stuff announced by the character into play.
- "Ha! I have my holdout gun in my underwear!"
- "So that's when the two guys carrying the window pane step into the path of the bad guy ..."
- "The hook snaps! The bag of guano plummets down!"

Now ya see, in EV, Coincidence is rolled. The damage represented happens to the bad guy, if the roll is successful, or to the player-character, if it's not. E.g., the bag of guano either hits Ugly Bob on the head, or it hits your guy on the head.

There you are. Director stance, yes - no matter what the roll does. But how it works out? Rolled. Fortune. Uncertainty.

Challenge.

Best,
Ron

Now, I'm pretty certain that those say pretty much the same thing.

Hi Walt,

Yes, you're describing Director stance, but I really really want to emphasize to people that again, it's one possible application of the concept, not a defining example.

What you're describing is improvisation, which pretty much requires a certain amount of Director stance as new "things" are being constantly invented into the setting, both in the past and in the present. However! One can very well be using Director stance in far more traditional, non-winging-it play.

Best,
Ron

Ron's correct, of course, in pointing out that my use of the bottle example omits discussion of the accompanying social contract. Sorry if I confused the issue.

Two quick comments: First, I always establish with my group prior to starting play that this sort of player-derived stage/scene setting is A-OK, hence the example of my particular experience.

Second, it's clear my group's use of Director Stance isn't the most expansive. We suggest new scenes or insert minor props as desired, but "bigger" plot-related elements like "the horses are waiting outside, saddled up and ready to ride" aren't part of our repetoire. I have no objection to that sort of power delegation, just haven't tried it yet.

Damn, I'm enjoying this thread.

Best,


Blake