Taken from chapter 3 of GNS Theory

In Actor stance, a person determines a character’s decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

In Author stance, a person determines a character’s decisions and actions based on the real person’s priorities, then retroactively “motivates” the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

Cassidy wrote: At the same time though the decisions or actions their characters perform are almost always based solely on their characters knowledge and perceptions within the game. That being the case they would also appear to be adopting an Actor stance.

Given the definitions for Actor/Author stance it seems appear possible that at a given point during play a player could be considered to be adopting both stances simultaneously.

Alan, thats precisely the reply that I'm looking for, many thanks.

I know where I stand with stances now, so to speak. :)

Excellent answer Alan. That's one of the better 1 line definitions of stance I've run across.

A common example of the difference between the two stances is as follows:

Situation: the character is a cop on a case related to a gang. The GM knows that the gang will be engageing in some sort of illicit activity in a nearby park that night. Through the course of previous play, the player, but not the character, also learn about this event (perhaps from overhearing the GM discussion with other players).

Actor Stance: The character has no reason to know anything about the park or the meeting, or occassion to be there. The player, basing his decision only upon what the character would do, has the character go home and go to bed (or to a bar, or whatever).

Author Stance: The character doesn't know about the park or the meeting, but the player does. The player wants the character to go to the park and "stumble into" the situation with the gang, thereby moving forward with the case. The player then retro engineers a justification along the lines of "my character would normally be at home in bed after pulling a double shift, but he just can't sleep for thinking about this case so he decides to go for a walk to clear his head. While walking off his insomnia he winds up strolling through the nearby park..."

Obviously for some forms of play Author stance such as this is strictly forbidden. For other styles it is both welcomed and encouraged.

Hi there,

One of the most difficult aspects of Author Stance is something I'm beginning to think of as "submissive" behavior by players regarding what they perceive as the GM's plans.

A little while ago, I had occasion to play Sorcerer with three folks who'd never played with one another or me before. Everyone was excited about it, and we'd discussed some of the privileges or weirdnesses of playing the game that aren't immediately apparent from its text.

I felt no need to "bring the characters together," as there was plenty of shared meat among their back-stories and the scenario. One player, however, apparently felt the need to engineer this event - he suggested, early and often, that the player-characters run into one another.

Now, my usual approach in play is "never argue with the word of God," which is to say, if a player obviously wants something to happen very badly, I accomodate it (that is to say, in terms of who goes where when and stuff like that, not resolution rolls). But in this case, the in-game justification was extremely contrived, and my reading of the situation was that the player was not acting out of "this will be cool or good" or similar, but because he was trying to help me get "my" story under way.

It's clear what generates this behavior: hours (and years) of experience in games when the GM is running a "Panama-canal" style scenario in which the player-characters all need to be together and to know X for "the story" to occur, but the GM starts them all widely separated. In such a scenario, the players are frustrated because they keep wandering and trying stuff, but nothing happens, and the GM is frustrated because "his story" never gets going.

My point: Author Stance operates within limits of in-story plausibility. However, that sentence needs exposition: in-story plausibility operates within the need to discover, express, intensify, and resolve Narrativist Premise. [Note: this whole post and this paragraph in particular assumes Narrativist play priorities.]

By the way, in the game in question, I think it's interesting and very significant that the player in question was assured by the other players, not by me, that it was OK not to "join up" through dubious coincidences, at least not until we all had a better idea of the driving passions of one another's characters. In other words, I think people in general have a very good intuitive feel for when coincidence, in stories, is at the service of the Premise as opposed to being "corralling" or contrived.

Enlisting that shared feel or standard into the game - up to and including player-input to the GM - is a very powerful shared skill.

Best,
Ron

This is why the term Pawn stance can be so helpful in understanding Author stance. Pawn stance is that stance where the player not only prioritizes his own desires, but fails to make any account for them in the context of play. To follow up on Ralph's example:

Author Stance: The character doesn't know about the park or the meeting, but the player does. The player wants the character to go to the park and "stumble into" the situation with the gang, thereby moving forward with the case. The player then retro engineers a justification along the lines of "my character would normally be at home in bed after pulling a double shift, but he just can't sleep for thinking about this case so he decides to go for a walk to clear his head. While walking off his insomnia he winds up strolling through the nearby park..."

I always imagined Stances as different types of computer gaming perspectives:

Actor Stance is '1st-person perspective' where all you see comes from the eyes of your character.

Author Stance is '3rd-person perspective' where you also care about how you look/behave in regard to your environment.

Director Stance is 'Top-down view' where your perceptions are primarily 'strategic' (not in the wargming way but in comparison to the other perspectives).

That's how I see it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, folks.

With respect,

Joe Llama

Just to see if I've got this right, how's this for an example?

Tyrus is helping defend a group of villagers from a band of Brigands who are in the process of sacking their village. Their obvious intent is to kill the men and take the women and children with intent of selling them into a life of slavery.

In a bloody exchange the villagers feeble attempts to defend themselves result in a rout. In the confusion Tyrus (one of our main protagonists) finds himself fleeing the village with three young children in tow.

Before Tyrus can make good his escape though he finds his path blocked by three of the Brigands.

Swords drawn they advance.

What are you going to do Tyrus?

yes, but.

The examples you provide all focus on the player choosing not to act in actor stance because of the possibility of being rewarded with XPs.

That may well be a very gamist reason for choosing the other stances, but is certainly not the only reason. As long as you keep in mind that the perceived benefit for acting out of character doesn't necessarily have anything to do with XPs or the like (it may just be because the story would be much "cooler" that way) I think you've got it.

You're right of course Valamir. I only used the example that I did (with XPs, obviously gamist) because I figured that it's one we've all come across at one time or another.

Actor stance: "Tyrus will attack the leader figuring that if he can take him out the rest of the Brigands will back off."

The decision of the player to have Tyrus act is this way could have been because...

...the player just wants to see some action and is a little bored.

... the player wants to wind up this scene quickly since he's got to pick his girlfriend up.

...the player really wants to see if Tyrus can take these guys out.

...the player is tired of the other players saying Tyrus is a boring old fart who's really a waste of time in combat situations.

...the player is trying to second guess the GM and expects that Tyrus may get beat up a little and captured. A turn of events that the player thinks might make for an interesting twist in the story.

...or really any other reason which is specifically motivated by the players own personal priorities, independant of their characters priorities within the game.

Right.

What's worse, however, is that a specific act may not be distinguishable as Actor, Author, or Pawn. Not knowing how the player was addressig the character, Tyrus could attack the brigands for any of the reasons you had, and (as you noted) nobody, not even the player maing the decision at times, will be the wiser as to what stance was used.

Director stance, OTOH, is pretty detectable, as it involves changing the action through something other than the character, usually.

Mike

Hi there,

To expand on Mike's point a little, Stances other than Director are usually discernable over the course of a few actions (rather than a single one), especially in combination with the real person commenting on and participating in actions by other players' characters.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: To expand on Mike's point a little, Stances other than Director are usually discernable over the course of a few actions (rather than a single one), especially in combination with the real person commenting on and participating in actions by other players' characters.

Cassidy wrote: Taking the example of Tyrus and the Brigands again and assume that the player has previously written Tyrus up in such a way as to suggest that he is a heroic and gallant figure in the best sense of the word.

Tyrus flees
Why? Because the player doesn't want Tyrus to get killed.

GM: "You're leaving the children behind?"
Player: They're young, they'll get over it.
GM: Errrr.

If the player is playing from a gamist standpoint then they may rationalise Tyrus's action as a 'tactical withdrawl'. It's a game, the player can't win or even compete if his main character is dead, ergo in the players mind retreat is a viable option.

What if though the game is structured to encourage a predominantly simulationist style of play?

Tyrus's action would suggest that the player really isn't too interested in playing that way and their action in this case would diminish the underlying premise of the game that the GM is trying to maintain, (i.e. a simulationist premise).

Would you as a GM "step in" and question the players action?

Excellent excellent point Andrew. I was musing over how to respond to that question but I think you hit the biggest thing. If a character is meant to be heroic (where heroic is defined is reckless with personal safty in the name of a good cause) than the game system needs to have mechanisms in place that reward the character and/or player for behaving this way...or at the very least remove obstacles with discourage it.

This is because the value system represented by a paper character's beliefs cannot be 1:1 mapped to the player.

Consider: The CHARACTER knows he is taking great risk with his personal saftey for the lives of the children...and the CHARACTER feels that saving the children are WORTH THE RISK.

However, the PLAYER clearly does not. There is a disconnect between the two value systems. One could argue that this is "bad roleplaying" on the part of the player, but what's the point of forcing the player to play in a manner he doesn't enjoy. The key is to make the player make the same KIND of decisions that the character would...even if its not for the same reason.

If acting heroically would gain the player Drama Dice (as in 7th Sea) for instance the PLAYER might then decide...no the children aren't worth the risk...but the Drama Die IS. By this method you preserve the thought process...both character and player are united in the belief that staying and fighting is worth more than running away, even though the motivation is different.

There are many possible substitutes for Drama Dice as a reward mechanism of course.

Valamir wrote: Consider: The CHARACTER knows he is taking great risk with his personal saftey for the lives of the children...and the CHARACTER feels that saving the children are WORTH THE RISK.

However, the PLAYER clearly does not. There is a disconnect between the two value systems. One could argue that this is "bad roleplaying" on the part of the player, but what's the point of forcing the player to play in a manner he doesn't enjoy. The key is to make the player make the same KIND of decisions that the character would...even if its not for the same reason.

Well first there are alot more reasons to play a game than exploration of character. If exploration of character is the primary goal and and your players are all deep immersionists and acting heroic is the way the character would act...then you don't have an issue at all.

The premise of the initial question was that you had a player who was "acting out of character" and whether or not the GM should force him to act in character. The alternative being presented is to reward rather than punish.

Sure, their characters actions would appear to be played 'in character' but in reality the motivation behind the players decision to have their character act that way has nothing to do with a desire to 'explore their character' which is the premise of the game.

Cassidy wrote:

Valamir wrote: Consider: The CHARACTER knows he is taking great risk with his personal safety for the lives of the children...and the CHARACTER feels that saving the children are WORTH THE RISK.

However, the PLAYER clearly does not. There is a disconnect between the two value systems. One could argue that this is "bad role-playing" on the part of the player, but what's the point of forcing the player to play in a manner he doesn't enjoy. The key is to make the player make the same KIND of decisions that the character would...even if its not for the same reason.

[Emphasis mine.]

If the underlying premise for the game doesn't coincide with a player's own premise for playing then is the approach of using 'rewards' to motivate the player really accomplishing anything?

...Assuming that a player is interested in 'exploring their character' and that the situations and events that occur in the game are engaging and enjoyable then actually playing the game by acting out their character's role within the game is reward in itself.

If a player is not interested in 'exploring their character' then without some alternative method of reward the player is unlikely to enjoy the game. There will be little to hold their interest and their level of participation is going to be minimal or even disruptive.

...This is all well and good but is there really any point in the player participating in the game when they just aren't interested in the game's premise?

Valamir wrote: Couple of points.
1) How would the GM step in to question the player on his choice be a superior solution...which is the solution you first presented. It would break the flow of the game. It would put the GM in a position of direct confrontation with the player (who most likely won't enjoy being policed) and their motivation for acting in character will still have nothing to do with a desire to explore their character...rather it will be coerced by threat or implied threat or simply threat of disapproval.

Valamir wrote: 2) Who cares what his motivation is as long as the player is enjoying the experience and his enjoyment isn't disrupting anyone else. If the other players are all very into playing their character, which is likely to cause them them more anxiety: a) having a player clearly not acting in character, b) having to stop play to reprimand such a player, or c) having that other player voluntarily act in character.

Le Joueur wrote: Whoa! Aren't we making a few unfair assumptions here?

First of all, unless a game either has poor focus or sells itself as something its not, can't we assume that the player will want to [fill in your playstyle of choice] with it? Really, are we talking about designing a game that will 'force' people to play it the way the designer wants? I don't think that's at all productive or even what's going on here.

Le Joueur wrote: I think Valamir is mostly talking about a time when a player is 'out of sync' with the game (you know, lost interest, got distracted, or whatever). Then the game, in its function to reinforce it's focus, will act to 'nudge' the player's choices with the character's actions back towards the focus that was the reason that the player chose the game in the first place.

Simply put, "if a player is not interested in 'exploring their character'" then they have chosen the wrong game if it is focused on 'character exploration.' I think we can safely assume that is not a likely case and skip arguing over whether a game designer (using rewards systems or whathaveyou) can force them to play a certain way.

Cassidy, I suspect that you don't really think that Valamir was talking about a "player participating in the game when they just aren't interested in the game's premise." That would be bad 'choice of game' and there's nothing that can be done about that (at least not in the rewards systems). I believe what he's talking about is when a game has rewards that suit its explicit focus. Or he's saying that a game that says it's about 'character exploration' and yet rewards 'character survival' at the expense of 'character exploration' is a badly designed game.

Le Joueur wrote: So in the interest of avoiding unnecessary conflict, can we drop the assumption that a player will be playing a game that does not suit their play preference and leave out the idea that a game can 'force' them to play otherwise?

Cassidy wrote:
How indeed, which is why I asked the question.

I don't follow why you think (c) would cause the other players more anxiety. If the player is choosing to voluntarily act in character, and thats the desired mode of play, then why would it make the other players anxious.

Cassidy wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Whoa! Aren't we making a few unfair assumptions here?

First of all, unless a game either has poor focus or sells itself as something its not, can't we assume that the player will want to [fill in your playstyle of choice] with it? Really, are we talking about designing a game that will 'force' people to play it the way the designer wants? I don't think that's at all productive or even what's going on here.

I'm not talking about game design from a commercial viewpoint designed to appeal to an unknown public.

I'm talking more specifically about a GM running a game for a group of players.

Sorry if that didn't come across.

Cassidy wrote: I was trying to highlight the issue of players who may be playing the game with a premise at odds with that of the players and the GM, and querying the worth of a reward system for that type of player.

Valamir makes some good points on character reward.

Valamir, (redited) wrote: Who cares what his motivation is as long as the player is enjoying the experience and his enjoyment isn't disrupting anyone else. If the other players are all very into playing their character, which is likely to cause them them less anxiety: a) having a player clearly not acting in character, b) having to stop play to reprimand such a player, or c) having that other player voluntarily act in character.

Le Joueur wrote: That's okay, I thought we were talking about 'set' rewards systems. Although I'm not sure how you can talk about changing a specific game's reward system without talking about design. (Or how we can discuss a specific gamemaster running a game on a public forum without an example; doesn't the lack of example pretty much force us to talk about "appeal to an unknown public?")

Le Joueur wrote: Are you saying that you are highlighting a dysfunctional situation?

Le Joueur wrote: Should a game try to handle dysfunction? I don't think so.

Le Joueur wrote: Is there any point in hiding the fact that there is a problem by trying to force anything, rewards system or not?

Le Joueur wrote: Changing a rewards system will not change the dysfunction, better to move to a functional game rather than attempt a 'patch.' Either way, would it not be the exposition of Premise, early on, that could prevent having to make all these adjustments.

I share that opinion also.

Le Joueur wrote: I'm just wondering about the benefit of talking about a dysfunctional set-up and then trying to 'fix' it by adjusting part of the game. Can you explain your goal here?

I presented the example of a dysfunctional system but someone else raised the point about using a reward system to keep players on track so to speak.

When reward systems were suggested as a means of maintaining a coherent game I raised the point that using a reward systems to fix the example I presented wouldn't in my opinion fix anything.

Cassidy wrote: If the underlying premise for the game doesn't coincide with a player's own premise for playing then is the approach of using 'rewards' to motivate the player really accomplishing anything?

For example, a fairly common premise of most role-playing games is 'Exploration of character within the setting'. Typically a player acts out out the role of their character in a chosen setting. The GM structures the game so that situations and events arise which provide opportunities for many types of character exploration to occur.

Assuming that a player is interested in 'exploring their character' and that the situations and events that occur in the game are engaging and enjoyable then actually playing the game by acting out their characters role within the game is reward in itself.

If a player is not interested in 'exploring their character' then without some alternative method of reward the player is unlikely to enjoy the game. There will be little to hold their interest and their level of particpation is going to be minimal or even disruptive.

You could as suggested use a 'reward' mechanism to encourage the player to direct their characters actions in a desired way such that they would appear to be acting in character.

"Hmmm...I want to run away and save Tyrus but if I stay then the GM may give me some extra dice for my roll in which case I can probably beat the Brigands."

Sure, their characters actions would appear to be played 'in character' but in reality the motivation behind the players decision to have their character act that way has nothing to do with a desire to 'explore their character' which is the premise of the game.

Virtually all of their characters actions will be taken from an Authorial stance. The fact that the actions that the player assigns to their character coincide with their characters perceived role and personality within the game would rely heavily on whatever reward system is employed.

This is all well and good but is there really any point in the player particpating in the game when they just aren't interested in the games premise?

Hope that clears things up.

Cassidy wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: Should a game try to handle dysfunction? I don't think so.

I disagree, I think a game (and I take that to mean game system) should try to handle pre-emptively handle dysfunction that arises as a consequence of incoherent game design.

You can't legislate for the players and GMs though. Depending on how they play the game any functional game system can become a dysfunctional one.

Hello,

I suggest that this thread is suffering from a lack of actual, concrete role-playing to talk about. "The" player or "the" reward system are too abstract for arguments to carry any weight, at least to me as a reader.

I suggest that someone propose a given game title, a given situation of play, and a given reward system in order to discuss what th'hell might be going on.

Best,
Ron

I didn't originally intend this thread to be about player rewards although thats the turn it took.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4075

Discusses player rewards in each of the GNS modes.

I was just going to call attention to this other thread, and Cassidy beat me to it:

Cassidy wrote: I didn't originally intend this thread to be about player rewards although thats the turn it took.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4075

Discusses player rewards in each of the GNS modes.

Fang Langford a.k.a. Le Joueur wrote: Basically, there'd be three ways to design a game then:

• With a rewards system that has no connection to the focus of the game (meaning that rewarded play can and often does go against the game's focus).

• With a rewards system that does not interfere with the game's focus (meaning that, while it doesn't facilitate the focus, rewarded play does not impede it either).

• With a rewards system that encourages play that matches the focus of the game (meaning that rewarded play feeds back positively into the game's focus).

Elegant design suggests that a game will fall only into one of these categories.

M. J. Young wrote: I was going to point to that in response to this:

Fang Langford a.k.a. Le Joueur wrote: Basically, there'd be three ways to design a game then:

• With a rewards system that has no connection to the focus of the game (meaning that rewarded play can and often does go against the game's focus).

• With a rewards system that does not interfere with the game's focus (meaning that, while it doesn't facilitate the focus, rewarded play does not impede it either).

• With a rewards system that encourages play that matches the focus of the game (meaning that rewarded play feeds back positively into the game's focus).

Elegant design suggests that a game will fall only into one of these categories.

I think Fang has missed

4. With no rewards system to either encourage or interfere with play of any sort.

M. J. Young wrote: I cite the other thread because there I suggest that it is quite possible to design a game in which the rewards are derived totally from the outcome of play itself, and not incorporated via system or mechanics. I give some examples of how that happens in my own games, where I think it happens constantly for those players who are interested in those rewards.

I then provide some examples of what I think...in that they give rewards for the desired conduct which themselves facilitate the desired conduct in the future. I think that perhaps this aspect of reward is sometimes overlooked. To take the gamist model as the easiest to describe, the idea of experience points earned for killing monsters which increase the abilities of the character reinforce gamism twice. The fact that I earned the points for killing the monsters is a reward for gamist conduct; the fact that the points increase my ability to engage in killing monsters in the future is an encouragement of gamist conduct.

Often when I read comments about reward systems, they seem to focus on the first aspect, giving rewards for the desired conduct, and overlook the second, facilitating future conduct of that sort.

M. J. Young wrote: What a game system needs for "a rewards system that encourages play that matches the focus of the game (meaning that rewarded play feeds back positively into the game's focus)" is not merely that the reward is given in recognition of desired play but also that the nature of the reward facilitate such play in the future.

M. J. Young wrote: What a game system needs for "a rewards system that encourages play that matches the focus of the game (meaning that rewarded play feeds back positively into the game's focus)" is not merely that the reward is given in recognition of desired play but also that the nature of the reward facilitate such play in the future.