Take a look at this:

STANCE CHART wrote: [img]http://www.100flowers.indie-rpgs.com/stance-chart.jpg[/img]

oops!

I'm Maryanne Snyder, no relation to Matt.

Unless Matt is descended from Michael Snyder of Cavan County...

MK Snyder wrote: oops!

I'm Maryanne Snyder, no relation to Matt.

I think I kinda see your point, but am not convinced. Especially with the term you've chosen which is problematic in a number of ways.

The following threads make some good reading to undersand stances, particularly the troublesome ground that you're trying to cover:


http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=766
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=796

Mike

Hey Mike,

Thanks for the links. That's just the sort of discussion I was looking for, but couldn't find. I know the term "God Stance" is a little unfortunate, but it's all I have to go on right now. I'm open to suggestions.

Using your Stance definitions (tacking on the stuff in parens):

Mike Holmes wrote: Audience - observing, but otherwise not-participating
Actor - making decisions for any character, IC.
Author - making decisions for any character, OOC.
Director - creating or motivating things other than characters (OOC).

FANG's EXAMPLE wrote: Director Stance:

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

GM: "What does your character do?"

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

MY EXAMPLE wrote: God Stance:

Player: "My foot soldiers will charge the main fortifications, keeping them occupied long enough for my calvary to sneak up behind them. Once the fortress is taken, they will wait for me to arrive with my escort"

GM: "What does your character do?"

Player: "The General will stay far removed from the battle, until it is clear that the fortress' defenses are about to break. Though it would be cool to be a part of the action, he's a complete coward."

It seems to me that "God Stance" is simply a subset, or more specific example of Director stance. In Ron's article I don't believe he specifies whether or not a director stance decision is motivated by a player or that player's character--and I tend to agree that the distiction is unnecessary.

In actor stance all decisions are based on a character's motivations at the time of the decision. In author stance a character's motivation for taking a particular course of action is retroactivly decided to allow for a player's desires to gain an in-game fruition. But in director stance, I'm not convinced that it matters whether or not the player or character wants something to happen. God stance then seems redundent.

The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like "God Stance" is just Actor Stance taken at a different detail level of play.

Like this, in Actor Stance:

• Personal Level -> "I hide under the table."

• Squad Level -> "We go into the tavern."

• Mob Level -> "We storm the gates."

• Army Level -> I have the Roughriders charge the hill, while the regiment attacks their left flank."

I don't see how any of this affects things which are not relevant to what the character can sense (which I understand to be Actor Stance). You're not acting upon anything in way that is not available to the character (no meta-game), so no Author or Director Stance; if anything, provided "God Stance" were a frequent or robust occurance, it argues more for a level of detail nomenclature rather than a separate Stance.

Or am I lost in the dark?

Fang Langford

(It's a lot to live up to the Madman role.)

Both of you make good points.

It is true that Director stance, as its currently defined, doesn't make any specific claims about IC/OOC motivation. However, I wouldn't say that such distinction is uncessary. Why wouldn't it matter where the motivation was coming from? Why is Director different from Actor/Author/Pawn in that respect?

Fang, I think your point about character scale is a good one, but not quite what I was trying to get at. I was envisioning the General excercising control over the battle (something outside limits of character) not the General and his troops as a single character (which would certainly be Actor Stance on a larger scale).

Actor & Author/Pawn all deal with player control of characters, something traditionally intended for The Players. Director deals with player control of non-characters, something traditionally intended for The GM. Part of what this is attempting is to divide up Director into its Actor/Author/Pawn equivilents to find non-traditionally options for controlling non-characters. It may be that they don't need to be named as new stances, but they should certainly be interesting to consider. Let me dump the term "God Stance" then and try something else:

EXAMPLE wrote: Director Stance (Actor-style): the player controls non-characters according to the personality of a particular role

PLAYER: "I rolled an Intervention! My character's patron, the Angel of Radiance, comes down in a fit of anger at being interrupted. She lectures my character for several hours and takes away all his cool stuff."

Director Stance (Author-style): the player controls non-characters according to his own desires, but then has his/her character express them as if they were natural

PLAYER: "Whew! I rolled an Intervention! My character's patron, the Angel of Radiance, creates a bubble of light that drives away the undead."

PLAYER 2: "Isn't she still mad at you?"

PLAYER: "Well, she's gotten over it by now and wants to save us."

Director Stance (Pawn-style): the player controls non-characters according to his own desires, without reguards to a particular character; what might be called "traditional GM Style"

PLAYER: "The Angel of Radience comes down and blasts the undead into smitherines. The zombies get fried to a crisp. My character goes home and sleeps for a week!"

PLAYER 2: "Isn't she still mad at you?"

PLAYER: "Yeah, but the Intervention I rolled doesn't care about that."

Ok, now you’ve abandoned the fourth stance, and instead suggested that there are basically three sub-stances of the director stance. In effect, when a player is making a director stance decision you are saying that he does so in either an actor or author stance way—but all within the confines of director stance. In a sense you are mapping the stance structure back on to director stance in the form of a subset. Is this a fair summary? Note that I’m including your pawn stance example along with author stance. I agree with Ron’s essay as written, in saying that pawn stance is a particular brand of author stance.

This makes more sense to me than God stance does, but I’m still not entirely convinced that the division is useful. Your example has me thinking though, and I intend to mull over the notion a bit more before responding directly to it.

Greetings Jonathan,

Interesting outline, looks almost like a attempt to identify personality types and apply them to attitudes of in-game role-play. Which may or may not be the case.

Here's an article about player types it's written in relation to MUDs, but provides some interesting insights into personality and behaviour. It may be of use to you, at leat I hope it might be of aide, otherwise this was a wasted post.

Also here's a decent, if dated, Vocabulary of Role-Playing . It's always interesting to compare terms as defined in glossaries of different games, if you care for that sort of thing. Not sure how good this one is, but there it is, use it in good health.

Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

fleetingGlow wrote: Ok, now you’ve abandoned the fourth stance, and instead suggested that there are basically three sub-stances of the director stance...Is this a fair summary?

Kester wrote: Interesting outline, looks almost like a attempt to identify personality types and apply them to attitudes of in-game role-play.

Ok, I thought about this whole stance issue a bit and here’s what I came up with:

First of all, I disagree with your ability and persona classifications. It’s not that I don’t think they exist, but rather I don’t think that a player makes decisions based on what you are calling ability in actor stance.

I’d argue that in actor and stance a player is making decisions based solely on the character’s perceptions of the situation. To quote Ron: “In Actor stance, a person determines a character’s decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.” Let me back up my claim by saying also that making decisions based on whether or not a character can do something is a bit hard to swallow for actor mode. For example, a character would never know exactly what he can and cannot accomplish. A player can take a guess if the system is fortune based and know with relative certainty what his character can do if the game employs drama and/or karma mechanics, but to act on that information would be author stance since the information is classified as out-of-character. Yes the character would have some idea of what he can do, but that would only be one of the many perceptions that the character has of himself and his situation. Actor stance then relies wholly on (to use your terminology) the player, the contract, and the persona.

Ability, by your definition, is simply out-of-character information that the player has access to.

Now let me talk a bit about your examples. All of them seem to involve making decisions for other characters (NPCs in your examples) based on either the character’s personal motivations or the player’s. I’d argue then that the player is not using director stance, but rather author/pawn or actor stance for those other characters. If the player is making decisions about the environment then he is using director stance, otherwise one of the remaining stances is being employed.

I’m not sure how that last bit jives with the GNS article and the definitions within it, but that’s what I came up with.

I suppose you could counter my argument by saying that the player, while making decisions for other characters, is still ultimately making decisions about his original character—and therefore the stance is still director.

I’m not sure.

Okay, after my long Author/Pawn discussion with Ron, I agree with you that "ability" is not a good way to describe the stances. I'm going to try to come up with a better set of descriptors.

fleetingGlow wrote: Now let me talk a bit about your examples. All of them seem to involve making decisions for other characters (NPCs in your examples) based on either the character’s personal motivations or the player’s. I’d argue then that the player is not using director stance, but rather author/pawn or actor stance for those other characters.

Hey Jonathan,

I've been following this really closely. I jumped in when I thought things were getting a little astray, but now....

Jonathan Walton wrote: It is true that Director stance, as its currently defined, doesn't make any specific claims about IC/OOC motivation. However, I wouldn't say that such distinction is unnecessary. Why wouldn't it matter where the motivation was coming from? Why is Director different from Actor/Author/Pawn in that respect?

Fang, I think your point about character scale is a good one, but not quite what I was trying to get at. I was envisioning the General exercising control over the battle (something outside limits of character) not the General and his troops as a single character (which would certainly be Actor Stance on a larger scale).

Actor & Author/Pawn all deal with player control of characters, something traditionally intended for The Players. Director deals with player control of non-characters, something traditionally intended for The GM. Part of what this is attempting is to divide up Director into its Actor/Author/Pawn equivalents to find non-traditionally options for controlling non-characters.

Director Stance (Actor-style): the player controls non-characters according to the personality of a particular role

Director Stance (Author-style): the player controls non-characters according to his own desires, but then has his/her character express them as if they were natural

Director Stance (Pawn-style): the player controls non-characters according to his own desires, without regards to a particular character; what might be called "traditional GM Style"

Thoughts?

Jonathan Walton wrote: I'm just coming at it from a different angle. What I called "God Stance" is a combination of "Director (Actor)" & "Director (Author)" in this new schema. Basically, I'm saying that the stances might break down like this:

- Character (Actor) = ACTOR
- Character (Author/Pawn) = AUTHOR/PAWN
- Environment (Actor) = GOD
- Environment (Author/Pawn) = DIRECTOR

These are all examples of the same thing. I'm just trying to find one that works for people (and myself, actually, since I haven't found one that really clicks yet).

Jonathan Walton wrote: Actually, the stances don't really have anything to do with personality type. They're all about how player desire translates into in-game events. It doesn't really matter what the desires are, it's about how they are interpreted. I'm just taking Ron's concepts and fiddling with them, trying to see what I can come up with.

Fang,

For the most part: right on! … Especially the part about the General being an exclusively fictional character.

But that’s only for the most part.

I think you are misinterpreting what Jonathan is saying. Namely that the General is not making decisions at all, let alone decisions based on or influenced by OOC information. Rather, the player is making a decision that effects elements wholly apart from his character (the General) either in line with what the General would want, or in line with what the player wants. Those two differences would be the separating factors between Director-Actor and Director-Author stance. As a side note, I think you cross-posted your response with Jonathan’s, in which he makes some changes. Now substitute “the General” with “the mcguffin.” That at least clears up confusion regarding decisions made for other characters.

However, now that I have written all that out, I must say it sounds like a redundant classification. I’ll explain why at a later time … real life calls. I’m still pondering about Jonathan’s new examples and I want to reread your post Fang.

I feel like I've jumped off into the deep end of the swimming pool and am trying to get everyone else to come join me :)

Fang, let me first say that I have no real investment in any of the models I've put forward so far. I'm just trying to find one to explain the weird Actor-Director hybrid Stance that I feel exists. Everything else is just experimentation with concepts.

Let me tell you how this started:

I was thinking about the GM in Agone (a game I've never read, but I've heard a great deal about). Supposedly, the GM in that game takes the role of a diety or ruler, and is supposed to make their GM decisions based somewhat on the personality of the ruling figure, not just the normal GM concerns of drame, tone, theme, etc. Now, I can't give specific examples, because I don't know what the personality of this ruler is like, but there definitely seems to be something different going on there, something that's not strictly Actor or Director Stance.

Then, more recently, I was thinking about the characters in my game, Storypunk. Basically, they walk into pre-existing stories and alter them to their hearts content, taking Director Stance but within the limitations of their character's personality. For example, a character who loved action might make a wuxia fairy tale completely with wicked stepmothers of Shaolin, but he wouldn't create a boring love story even if that's what the player really was interested in at the moment.

[[In that case, I'd argue that the motivation is coming from the fictional character. If you're taking Actor Stance seriously, it's just like being an actor in a play. There are some personality traits that are "scripted" and going against them breaks character (taking you into Author/Pawn Stance). There can definitely be moments when the proper IC-desire of the character and the OOC desire of the player can be at odds.]]

So, both of these two situations lead me to believe that there's a brand of Director Stance that's governed by a specific role (just like Actor Stance is). Maybe calling it a separate Stance was premature. But I'm trying to figure out how to conceptualize it, since it's going to be a central component of the game I'm currently working on.

Does that clear things up any?

Later.
Jonathan

Jonathan Walton wrote: If you're taking Actor Stance seriously, it's just like being an actor in a play.

...Does that clear things up any?

Just a quick comment before I get some sleep.

Jonathan,

I think your comment about the GM’s role in Agone could be another thread entirely. Do stances differ for GMs vs players? Or, more generally, what sort of specific stances, if any, should be defined for the role of the GM?

Separating the issue into a GM stance and player stance concept might be the direction you are looking for.

Le Joueur wrote:

Jonathan Walton wrote: If you're taking Actor Stance seriously, it's just like being an actor in a play.

...Does that clear things up any?

Absolutely.

The statement quoted is patently incorrect...and the very common mistake due to the word used for the concept. Actor Stance has absolutely nothing to do with any form of acting (stage, screen, or idiot box). I've always had a problem with this terminology; it was the reason I broke with the GNS model originally.

talysman wrote:

Le Joueur wrote:

Jonathan Walton wrote: If you're taking Actor Stance seriously, it's just like being an actor in a play.

The statement quoted is patently incorrect...and the very common mistake due to the word used for the concept. Actor Stance has absolutely nothing to do with any form of acting (stage, screen, or idiot box). I've always had a problem with this terminology; it was the reason I broke with the GNS model originally.

In Jonathan's defense, you may have unintentionally snipped more from that quote than you meant to.

I understood Jonathan to say that Actor stance is like an actor in a play in one specific way: the motivations of the player are determined by the motivations of the character.

Le Joueur wrote: The player's motivation to emulate the character should not be mistaken for actual motivations of the character. Not is theatre and not in gaming.

Obviously a character is fictional and therefore can never have real motivations, or emotions, or anything else resembling human existence. However, when a person reads Hamlet for example, that person naturally forms an interpretation of Hamlet’s character—and by that I mean an interpretation of what Hamlet’s motivations etc are. From that interpretation of character a reader can draw conclusions about the play as a whole. As Fang has stated twice now though, we must remember that Hamlet is a creation of Shakespeare’s mind; he does not really exist. I don’t think anyone here is having a problem grasping that concept.

And yet we must all remember that our interpretations of Hamlet will differ from anyone else who reads the exact same play. What does that mean? It means that Hamlet’s “motivations” (notice the quotation marks) are malleable, or maybe more appropriately, ethereal. They are based on text or actions, yet are forever up to debate. But now I’m talking more about written work then roleplaying—which differs entirely because it is unscripted.

In a roleplaying game the players have a set of guidelines as to how they believe their character will generally act. These guidelines are usually laid down before play starts, in the form of character creation. We can consider these guidelines to sometimes be in the form of motivations. Whether or not the motivations are of the character or of the player is a tricky subject. You could say that if one player made a character and then handed off that same character to someone else—even if player A had time to prep player B verbally—then that second player would still operate the character in ways contrary to the way the first player would have. This is correct and consistent to my Hamlet example. What it means is that even a set of guidelines are subject to interpretation (as are player A’s prep work). So again, that character’s “motivations” are ethereal—they don’t really exist except in the mind of the player/author/actor/director/reader/audience member/whatever.

That said, I think we are all getting away from the original topic of discussion for this thread, and I’d suggest starting up a new thread if people want to talk about character motivations further—not that I really have any authority to enforce this suggestion. It is merely that: a suggestion.

Hi there,

Tim's right, and if I'm not mistaken, this thread has met its goals. If the original thread author wants to continue, we will; otherwise, it's closed.

Best,
Ron

Well, I still don't think I've found a satisfactory answer to the IC-Director Stance issue, but it may be that we're not going to get one right now (and it may be my own viewpoint is keeping me from accepting some of the answers that have been offered).

I'll start a new thread on Character vs. Player Motivation.

Later.
Jonathan

Jonathan Walton wrote: Well, I still don't think I've found a satisfactory answer to the IC-Director Stance issue, but it may be that we're not going to get one right now (and it may be my own viewpoint is keeping me from accepting some of the answers that have been offered).

Every example posed thus far has simply sounded like performing normal Director Stance in the character's 'voice,' nothing more.

That may be it, actually. What I'm seeing as another stance might be, in your perspective, just another aspect of Director.

However, since the two examples you mentioned are both my games, it may be that I'm trying to head down a different path here, even though I'm not sure where I'm going. It's not that you're a bonehead, obviously, it's that I'm not quite sure what I'm getting at either, but I'm still trying to illuminate it as best I can.

Basically, I challenge the very idea that you can do anything with meta-game resources while In-Character.

Okay, imagine this: you're playing a Universalis mod where the players take on the roles of the Greek Gods. I'm Mercury, you're Zeus, etc. Now, your task is to create a setting and an accompanying story while trying to fulfill your role as a god. Say, Mercury, the god of healing and messengers, doesn't want any messangers to get hurt. However, Zeus, wanting to smite everything he sees, tries to thunderbolt a messenger. So we have metagame IC-conflict over what should be allowed to happen in the story.

Does that example work, or do I need to come up with another? This is similar to the story-within-a-story of Storypunk, where game play takes place on two seperate levels.

Later.
Jonathan

I have an example. May or may not shed light.

My character's walking down a hallway. Murray, a fellow PC, is sequestered in his library. I don't have any metagame reason to call for a scene between my character and Murray. My eyes are closed, and I'm working hard to imagine my character's experiences as fully as possible.

Me: "So I'm walking down the hallway, looking at the tapestries, like I stop and examine a detail in one, a dog, before I walk on and -- huh! I bump into Murray."
Murray's Player: "You do? I must've finished what I was working on."

I've used director stance to bring Murray to the hallway, based only on my imagination of my character's experience. Same as when you say "I examine the doorknob" and your GM says "cool, what does the doorknob look like?" and you describe it.

-Vincent

Hey Jonathan,

Good to know we can continue the discussion civilly.

Jonathan Walton wrote: However, since the two examples you mentioned are both my games, it may be that I'm trying to head down a different path here, even though I'm not sure where I'm going. It's not that you're a bonehead, obviously, it's that I'm not quite sure what I'm getting at either, but I'm still trying to illuminate it as best I can.

Basically, I challenge the very idea that you can do anything with meta-game resources while In-Character.

Okay, imagine this: you're playing a Universalis mod where the players take on the roles of the Greek Gods. I'm Mercury, you're Zeus, etc. Now, your task is to create a setting and an accompanying story while trying to fulfill your role as a god. Say, Mercury, the god of healing and messengers, doesn't want any messengers to get hurt. However, Zeus, wanting to smite everything he sees, tries to thunderbolt a messenger. So we have meta-game IC-conflict over what should be allowed to happen in the story.

Does that example work, or do I need to come up with another? This is similar to the story-within-a-story of Storypunk, where game play takes place on two separate levels.

An interesting example except, in Universalis, you don't play In-Character. So you aren't creating either setting or accompanying story as a god.

I know. That's why I said it was a Universalis mod. This is a non-standard example, using the game's rules because we're all familiar with them. Let me actually write out the example so I can better demonstrate what I'm getting at:

EXAMPLE wrote: PLAYER 1 (Mercury): Okay, a messenger is running along the road from Athens to Sparta. He is very tired and about to collapse. I give him the energy he needs to carry on and deliver his important message.

(Player 1 spends coins to create the mortal, the messege, the scene, etc.; then spends 1 more to provide the extra energy boost).

PLAYER 2 (Zeus): What? Are you just going to go around helping every mere mortal you find? That's ungodlike. As King of the Gods, I will punish you by thunderbolting that mortal into smithereens.

(Player 2 prepares to spend the coins that will remove the mortal from play)

PLAYER 1 (Mercury): Stop! As the guardian of messengers, I will resist this outrage. The man will not die simply because you object to my actions!

PLAYER 2 (Zeus): You dare! Ha! Stop me if you can!

(Both players get into a bidding war to see if the messenger lives or dies)

Hi Jonathan,

I think your "gods" example is flawed, relative to your intended point.

If I'm playing Mercury, I'm playing Mercury. The (in-game) character's (in-game) powers includes affecting the (in-game) world drastically. I don't care what Mercury does; whenever I say he does something, I'm in Actor or Author stance. It's only Director stance if I, as Mercury's player, specify something occurring that is not Mercury's doing.

Stance is not defined relative to the game-world. It's defined relative to the character.

I also think you're still struggling mightily with the in-character vs. out-of-character issue. There's a section of my essay, at the end of the Stance section, that specifically addresses this topic.

Best,
Ron

Fang is correct. Either the power is metagame (as it's described in Universalis), in which case it's use to do things outside the character is Director stance, or the power simulates the in-game entity's power in some way (as in your interesting idea), which makes it's use Author stance.

That's a clear distinction. All Director stance decisions are made employing powers that are metagame. If the power is defined as belonging to the character, it's some other stance.

Mike

So, what people are basically saying is that IC-manipulation of anything, including metagame attributes, is still Actor Stance? This may be what I wasn't fully understanding earlier, which is the cause of all this mess.

If Bob's character, Bobatar, says "Ha! I will use my magical might to affect the very powers that control our world!" and forces the players to switch from D20 to Fudge mechanics, is that still Actor Stance? If so, then I guess I'm completely barking up the wrong tree, like Ron said.

Still, if the Actor/Director distinction is merely based on IC/OOC voice, I think it begins to break down given extreme situations like the ones I'm describing. That's fine. There's nothing wrong with that. Most theories break down when pushed, and I was definitely trying to push this one.

It just means I might have to come up with a new vocabulary to make clear distictions between various levels of story-within-a-story stuff that I'm trying to do. I was hoping to use the GNS Stances because I like them (well, what I understand of them) and because they are already in use here, so I wouldn't have to introduce new terms.

Sigh. I'll go put my nose to the grindstone and go read Ron's essay again. It seems that it still hasn't sunk in like it's supposed to. My turn to bang my head against the wall, I guess.

Thanks for your help.

Later.
Jonathan

Jonathan,

You have confused me greatly. What is all this about in-character vs. out-of-character? Really, that issue is totally off the beam regarding Stance.

Best,
Ron

A metagame power is one which the player has, but the character does not. Nobody in the game world would say that a particular character has Hero Points as described in most games. They might say he was heroic, and that might be represented by the Hero points in effect, but nobody believes that they are a character in a game with such meta-abilities.

Except possibly in your game. But all that you have done is to establish a new meta-level. Meta-meta-game, if you will (with our universe being the meta-meta level, and the first meta-level being in-game, essentially). The meta-game that is actually played in-game is Author stance, as it represents an in-game decision of the actual player regarding the character one level below the "outer-most meta-layer" of play. It's only when it's a purely player decision that it's truely meta-game, and therefore Director stance.

That's a tangle. Does it help?

Mike

You have confused me greatly.

Not as much as I've confused myself, apparently. I must be totally misinterpreting what you said. Argh! And I don't even know what my confusion is stemming from anymore...

If I'm playing Mercury, I'm playing Mercury. The (in-game) character's (in-game) powers includes affecting the (in-game) world drastically. I don't care what Mercury does; whenever I say he does something, I'm in Actor or Author stance.

So I was asking about the (in-game) character's (in-game/out-of-game) powers to affect the (out-of-game) actual game situation. Fang would probably argue that this doesn't exist, i.e. that anything that happens out-of-game is no longer something the character made happen, even if the players are "obeying the character's will."

Ignore my IC/OOC confusion for now (I'll go reread your essay, which should hopefully clear up the way I'm connecting IC/OOC stuff with Stances). What do you think of the Bob/Bobatar example?

Later.
Jonathan

So, what people are basically saying is that IC-manipulation of anything, including metagame attributes, is still Actor Stance?

Mike Holmes wrote: That's a tangle. Does it help?

Walt, it's too bad we cross-posted or I would have saved myself a ton of time. You explained things much better than I could, and the holodeck example is great. I think we've finally got this issue solved.

Thanks muchly!

Jonathan

EDIT: Except...

Walt wrote: ...but manipulation of metagame attributes cannot ever be IC.

Oh, I see what you're getting at here. You not only have levels of reality, you want to break them. Kind of like, when Moriarty becomes aware that he's an NPC software construct in a holodeck program on a starship, and manages to take over the ship.(1)

I'll assume, therefore, that Bobatar is (fictionally portrayed as being)(2) aware that he is a character in a role playing game. He is aware of the players controlling him, and he is aware of the game mechanisms by which his actions will be resolved in the real world and thereby affect his world. That includes being aware that the players hear what he says. And let's not assume that the player's compliance with those effects is voluntary; they might not be, under the social contract (and Bobatar might be aware of that too).

Bobatar says, "Switch to Fudge rules." What stances could that be?

Well, first, Bobatar doesn't have a stance, since Bobatar isn't playing a character in an RPG. He is one; he's not playing one.

Bob is the one who actually uttered Bobatar's request and he's the one who has a stance. Since it's within Bobatar's volitional powers to say something to the players, it's not Director stance. It could be Actor (if Bob is acting on Bobatar's in-character desire to change the world to Fudge resolution) or Author (if Bob is acting on his own desire to change to Fudge resolution) including Pawn (if Bob provides no justification for why Bobatar would make the request). (3)

Now suppose there's a big green button in the game world that Bobatar knows will force the players (under their social contract and the game mechanics) to switch to Fudge rules if he pushes it. Bobatar pushes the big green button. Bob's possible stances for this action are the same as before. The existence of the big green button has made it within Bobatar's volitional powers to force the rules change, so Bob is still not using Director stance.

If the social contract permits, Bob can use Director stance, without necessarily involving Bobatar at all. For example, Bob might introduce the big green button into the game in the first place.

Bobatar would (fictionally) perceive Bob's actions in different ways depending on Bob's stance, which in this game might be worthwhile to explore. Actor stance actions would most likely be perceived by Bobatar as the exercise of his own free will. Author stance (non Pawn) would be perceived as being nudged toward or convinced to make certain decisions that at least in retrospect seem like actions he might have chosen anyway. Pawn stance would be perceived as an external remote control over his body. Director stance might be perceived as godlike acts of magic transforming Bobatar's world... or perhaps just as Bobatar perceiving aspects of the world that he hadn't noticed before.

Now, if Bobatar isn't represented as knowing of the existence of the players or aware that he can speak to them, then saying "Switch to Fudge rules" wouldn't be a plausible in-character action for Bobatar. If Bob puts those words in Bobatar's mouth, it's almost certainly Pawn stance.

Some unncessary confusion seems to be coming from the idea that certain kinds of effects must imply certain kinds of stances that caused them. Your own examples provide interesting cases showing that's not true. An effect that changes something at the metagame level doesn't require a metagame-related stance.

(1) I'm not going to keep inserting the phrase "fictionally portrayed as" everywhere that it might technically be appropriate. Please just assume that I'm sane and therefore aware that the properties and actions of a fictional entity are also fictional.

(2) I'm pretty sure this actually happened in one episode, which led to the immediate dismantling of all holodecks throughout Star Fleet as an obvious safety hazard... or would have, in any plausible universe.

(3) Note that it's not at all uncommon for in-character actions to have metagame effects. It's completely normal. Such as, do something dramatic (but in-character), and get a hero point.

- Walt

Walt,

You're my hero. Those two examples can just rock on. You cleared up all kinds of doubts still floating around in my head that I knew were unfounded, but nonetheless present.

This was particularly helpful: "An effect that changes something at the metagame level doesn't require a metagame-related stance."

I completely agree with Tim, Walt. Where were you, like, 3 pages worth of confusion ago? ;)

Thank you for the thoughtful, detailed, perceptive response. Both of your posts hit all my nails on the head. You perfectly understood what I was getting at and were able to see why things weren't working.

Now, instead of feeling like I'm an raving lunatic, I feel much more confident about writing Storypunk. You rock.

Later.
Jonathan

Forgive me if I upset things here, but I was following what Jonathan at least seemed to be getting at and don't see why it has been completely resolved.

On the other hand, it seemed to me that the question of whether characters have motivations was integral to his idea, and thus I found it quite baffling that that issue was split off to another thread; however, I will endeavor to address that whenever I find that thread (which I'm guessing was moved to the Theory forum).

Still, I see four concepts which could be distinguished as individual stances; and without prejudicing the matter by attempting to label them, let me present them as succinctly as I am able and see whether there's some reason why these four should only be three. Please accept for the moment that it is entirely plausible for the player and the character to have distinct motivations and objectives in play; I'm sure it happens all the time.

• The player acts from character knowledge to control things which the character could control to achieve a character objective. This is the fairly ordinary form of play, exemplified by a character drawing a weapon and attacking a character who is an enemy of that character.
• The player acts from player knowledge to control things which the character could control to achieve a player objective. This would seem to include any action which the player has to justify in some way, and any action which seems entirely out of character for the character but achieves a player-desired objective.
• The player acts from character knowledge to control things the character could not control to achieve a character objective. The quickest example of this is "As I'm hiding behind the bed, I see that there is a shotgun beneath it, and slide it out; it's loaded."
• The player acts from player knowledge to control things the character could not control to achieve a player objective. This might include that while PC Luke Skywalker is arguing with the Emperor, his player announces that at that moment Han Solo manages to destroy the shield generator (assuming either that no one is actually playing that part, or that it is already known that they succeeded and what matters is the timing of that event relative to Luke's situation, or that it is within the power of the player to determine the outcome of that event).


So which of these is not a genuine distinct stance?

--M. J. Young

Hey, :)

From what I understand, points 3 and 4 are the same stance. The player is calling out things that have nothing to do with the character's actions. The fact that the character then has other actions based on the things that were called out is imaterial, as far as I gather.

Actually, to be more accurate:

M. J. Young wrote: As I'm hiding behind the bed, I see that there is a shotgun beneath it, and slide it out; it's loaded.

Very succinctly put M. J.

The problem is you cannot treat "player knowledge" and "character knowledge" as separate entities. While it is true that "character knowledge" does not include all of what the player knows, the reverse is not true. The player knows everything that the character knows. Thus #3 can, and should, be changed to replace "character knowledge" with "player knowledge."

While it might be true that in #3 type situations the player is acting upon "things the character could not control" to benefit the character, they are not acting upon "character knowledge" because at that point "character knowledge" is an illusion. There is no character as a distinct entity apart from the player therefore technically the player can only act from player knowledge. The character has no knowledge of "things the character could not control," therefore acting upon them is not restricted to the subset of "player knowledge" commonly called "character knowledge."

Ultimately, because "character knowledge" is simply a subset of "player knowledge," #3 dissolves into #4. There are situations where it is for and by the benefit of the character that a player may act upon "things the character could not control," it is still an act of "player knowledge" upon "things the character could not control."

I'm not saying #3 doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist outside of #4.

Fang Langford

Le Joueur wrote: Very succinctly put M. J.

The problem is you cannot treat "player knowledge" and "character knowledge" as separate entities. While it is true that "character knowledge" does not include all of what the player knows, the reverse is not true. The player knows everything that the character knows.

Jared A. Sorensen wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: The problem is you cannot treat "player knowledge" and "character knowledge" as separate entities. While it is true that "character knowledge" does not include all of what the player knows, the reverse is not true. The player knows everything that the character knows.

Except that's not right. If my character is (for example) a cardio-vascular surgeon, I still don't know anything about open-heart surgery. Same thing goes for a weird fantasy game like Talislanta. I'm a new player, I don't know a thing about the world...yet my Jaka Beastmaster knows an exomorph from a nightbane.

And just like you choose what information you allow your character to use, you can also choose what information to use that your character knows.

MJ,

I think there’s a lot of unnecessary confusion surrounding player goals and character goals. The fact of the matter is that player and character goals are going to be suspiciously similar because, as I’ve stated before, character motivations are ethereal and only exist in the mind of the controlling player. The real difference here is the notion of meta-game goals vs. in-game or maybe in-character goals.

The former would have to do with issues of dramatic entrances, whether a shotgun is behind the bed when no one has stated the fact explicitly, how many hero points a character has, and all the rest. The later would be in the form of “I want to impress people in the bar when I walk in,” “I need a shotgun now,” and “I really want to succeed.”

Those are kind of lousy examples, but what I really want to get across here is that the separation is between meta-game goals and in-game goals—not between player goals and character goals.

What you should really be differentiating between in examples three and four is whether or not the player—who is affecting the meta-game—is acting in the character’s interest (as seen from the character’s point of view), or not. To put it another way … When a player is making decisions in director stance does he help the character or not? (Note that the latter option does not necessarily mean the player is harming the character.)

This, however, does not matter in terms of stance. When you are in director stance, you are always affecting things outside of the character and thus you don’t have to consider what the character would and would not want to happen if he was a real person. Of course you could, that’s your prerogative as the controlling player, but all director stance requires is that you change something outside of the character’s volition or power to influence.

fleetingGlow wrote: I think there’s a lot of unnecessary confusion surrounding player goals and character goals. The fact of the matter is that player and character goals are going to be suspiciously similar because, as I’ve stated before, character motivations are ethereal and only exist in the mind of the controlling player. The real difference here is the notion of meta-game goals vs. in-game or maybe in-character goals.

fleetingGlow wrote: MJ,

I think there?s a lot of unnecessary confusion surrounding player goals and character goals. The fact of the matter is that player and character goals are going to be suspiciously similar because, as I?ve stated before, character motivations are ethereal and only exist in the mind of the controlling player.

M. J. Young wrote: Player and character knowledge are distinct; player and character motivations are also distinct. The question often is whether I do what I want or what my character would do--and in the same sense that this distinguishes pawn from actor, I think it should distinguish director into two categories.

Otherwise you (and Mike) are manifestly correct; the goals of the character are not those of the player, except that they also come from the player and nowhere else.

So now it's my turn to ask: why does this matter? I mean, if we're talking about two distinct types of goals here, why does it matter that they both ultimately come from the same source? Shouldn't we be allowed to seperate them into two seperate categories, as it seems they deserve?

I guess I just don't buy this "same source" argument as a reason for Director Stance not to be split into distinct parts.

Later.
Jonathan

Hey Jonathan,

Jonathan Walton wrote: Otherwise you (and Mike) are manifestly correct; the goals of the character are not those of the player, except that they also come from the player and nowhere else.

So now it's my turn to ask: why does this matter? I mean, if we're talking about two distinct types of goals here, why does it matter that they both ultimately come from the same source? Shouldn't we be allowed to seperate them into two seperate categories, as it seems they deserve?

I guess I just don't buy this "same source" argument as a reason for Director Stance not to be split into distinct parts.

Hi Jonathan,

I'm reeeal confused again. Here's an example of Director stance in action.

I'm playing Bart Blass, explorer and action hero; I'm confronted with the NPC Feeney McGurk, who's committed a large number of atrocities on many people, some of whom Bart knows (or rather, knew).

Epic combat ensues, and at one point, upon scoring a fabulous victory upon McGurk, I gaze at the great damage roll (or whatever) and say, "Ha! I [meaning Blass] clip him on the jaw, which wouldn't do anything ordinarily, but there's this wooden beam behind him, and his head flies back and smacks it!"

[Twist of the dial: in some games, who-says-what-when is very formal, ranging from "GM only, ever" to "High scorer narrates" or whatever. The default situation is basically handled socially, with any number of people contributing but the buck stopping somewhere.]

[Twist of the dial: in some games, I spend a point, roll a dice, or use some other formal system mechanic to be permitted to say this. In this case, note that it is used as an alternative or a rescue to missing McGurk or otherwise being unable to stop him, rather than a followup narration detail as it is in the default case.]

That's Director stance - the player has arranged physical matters that have nothing to do with the character's abilities (i.e. the placement of the beam) such that something occurs.

"I show up, exactly then!" Director stance. "There's a flashlight in the glove compartment, right?" Director stance. "The light shines from behind me, so all they see is this cool silhouette."

All of these happen to include the character doing something, which is not the point. The point is that they all include establishing, moving, or positioning non-character-activity elements in the scene. The "I show up" example is actually the most drastic of the bunch, as it entails retroactively twisting all of the game-world's imagined time and space between the character's previous appearance and the events of the current scene.

So what is all this about character motivations? I do not get it.

Best,
Ron

Okay, Ron, try this on for size:

I'm playing Arslan, a diabolical despot who delights in the conquering and murder of all those that oppose him. Though, as a player, I'd enjoy seeing Arslan confronted by more benevolent forces and ultimately defeated, Arslan, as a character, is bent on nothing less than world domination, and won't stop until he's dead. If I, as his player, do not depict him as such, I'm being untrue to the character, and that is also unsatisfactory. In this case, player and character have completely different motives (granting, as Fang said, that both these motives ultimately spring from the player).

Now, if I'm in a situation when I can use director stance, I can use it in a couple different ways:

A) I can use Director Stance to make what I, as a Player, personally want to happen (move Arslan closer to a glorious defeat at the hands of his enemies).

B) I can use Director stance to make what I, wanting to make Arslan a real threat and desiring to remaining true to his character, wish to happen (move Arslan closer to world domination).

Now, if ALL the players have the potential to use Director Stance, B might be another, possibly better, way of getting at A. If I make Arslan's defeat too easy (since that's what I desire also), it makes the game less fun for everyone involved. If I make Arslan have a good chance of succeeding and threaten the other players' characters with possible death or severe injury, it makes their eventual victory that much more glorious.

Does that example make things clearer?

Later.
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Sorry, man, it doesn't. I'm really going to have to have examples of your two types of Director stance written out in terms of actual play, like I did with Bart and Feeney.

Best,
Ron

Similar situation to your example:

Bart is playing Feeney, a character that has committed a number of atrocities. There is a confrontation between Feeney and some heroic PC types on the edge of a "bottomless" pit. Very dramatic and dangerous. Epic combat ensues and, at some point, Bart gets to exercise Director Stance.

A) "Ha, I clip GoodPC#1 across the jaw, doing no damage. But look, the pit yawns right next to him and he looses his balance, falling into the abyss!" (using Director Stance to support Feeney)

B) "Ha, I clip GoodPC#1 across the jaw, doing no damage. And look, the pit yawns right next to Feeney! Off-balance from delivering the blow, Feeney falls into the pit!" (using Director Stance against Feeney)

Why would Bart do B? Because it supports the notion that good should triumph over evil, and important theme in their game. Or maybe Feeney is supposed to get reborn as a cyborg and seek revenge. Or maybe Bart's just sick of playing the character and wants to make a new one.

Anyway, I suppose I'm distinguishing between using Director Stance in support of a character's cause and using it for player purposes distict from or opposed to character purposes.

Any better, or should I try again?

Later.
Jonathan

I see the distinction. But this is not at all like the difference betwween Pawn and Author stances. The difference between the two in that case is that the player merely retroactively assigns a reason why the character did what he did in Author mode, and does not in Pawn.

1) Pawn mode pro character. Feeney stops and gives a small child a flower.

2) Pawn mode anti-character. Feeney jumps into the pit.

3) Author Mode pro character. Feeney has had a huge change of heart after hitting his opponent, and gives a small child a flower.

4) Author Mode anti-character. Feeny sees the error of his ways, and jumps into the pit.

The pro-anti, thing is a totally separate consideration.

Mike

Hi Jonathan,

Dude, that distinction applies as an independent variable across all the stances, even Actor stance. It doesn't parallel the Pawn/non-Pawn distinction within Author stance at all.

Nothing about the definitions of any of the stances concerns whether the actions are to the benefit of a character, or accord with "what the character wants." Even in Actor stance, the player can be expressing elements of the character that the character, for instance, might not want to be revealed (fictionally speaking).

That's a whole different issue, and I can see why you're puzzled if you're confounding it with stance.

Best,
Ron

Mike, I wasn't trying to harp on the "opposition" point, I was just using that as an example where the player and character's desires were obviously different. My main point was "distictness" not the pro-anti issue, which I agree is completely seperate.

Later.
Jonathan

If you were proposing a stance where one used Director stance, but did not give an in-game rationale for what happened, versus Director Stance where one did, I suppose could support that as different. But it'd be odd, and only functional in a Surrealist game.

"Author type" Director Stance: Rain starts falling because it's cloudy, and makes sense with the mood of play right now (someone did just this in the last Synthesis playtest).

"Pawn type" Director Stance: Cats start falling from the sky. Why? I dunno.

The thing is that the "world" doesn't have motives, and as such something "senseless" is actually likely validly reasonable. No motive required. In any case, since director stance is about making decisions about something other than the character, this seems to apply.

I think that's the problem you're having. Just keep in mind that Director Stance has nothing to do with a character, and everything to do with changing the world.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I think that's the problem you're having. Just keep in mind that Director Stance has nothing to do with a character, and everything to do with changing the world.

I know that you all hang around here all day with nothing else to do but check forum threads, but please give a guy a chance who has a family and can only look in once a day ;).

The distinction toward which I was getting was between a player affecting events which would be within the character's knowledge and a player affecting events which would be outside the character's knowledge.

Of the former: "Although Moriarty's henchman arrives, Moriarty had locked the door to try to catch Holmes (me), and Watson happens to be standing between Moriarty and the door so they can't get in."

Of the latter: "Moriarty's henchman was arrested last night in Soho, but none of us know this. Thus Moriarty has not received the expected delivery."

It is clear in the former case that Holmes can see the door, and the player declares it to be locked and blocked by Watson; and that he can hear someone pounding on the door trying to get in. In the latter case, it is given that neither Holmes nor anyone else there know that the henchman was arrested, and that Holmes cannot know even that Moriarty was expecting some kind of delivery, let alone that it had not come.

I see a distinction here between using stance to determine things which while outside the character's sphere of control are within the character's direct knowledge, as opposed to changing things which are outside the character's knowledge. Holmes may never know any of the points his player decided in the latter case; he is clearly aware of all of them in the former.

Does that clarify the distinction?

--M. J. Young

Hey, :)

Jonathan Walton wrote: So now it's my turn to ask: why does this matter? I mean, if we're talking about two distinct types of goals here, why does it matter that they both ultimately come from the same source? Shouldn't we be allowed to seperate them into two seperate categories, as it seems they deserve?

I guess I just don't buy this "same source" argument as a reason for Director Stance not to be split into distinct parts.

Hello,

All right, that does it. Five pages of piffle, people. It's because multiple explanations are flying across one another and confusing Jonathan. It's time to stop.

The answers to his questions are very easy and I've provided them, in my posts. However, they've been obscured by quite a few side issues and a few unfortunate statements that were well-meant but can be read in multiple ways.

For instance, Mike says, "Director Stance has nothing to do with character." I know what Mike means by this. However, saying it's "nothing to do with character" is confusing Jonathan, because as he rightly says, stances are about the real human's relation to a character. Properly stated, Director stance by definition is about this too: it excludes what the character does, focusing on the environment (in a very general sense of the word) instead. It is about how the player's announcement relates to the character - it excludes the character for a moment and focuses on his or her surroundings.

Now, I have no intention of disentangling the multitude of similar boggles that litter this thread. None of them are substantive. I am not going to permit them to continue to chase their tails here.

Jonathan, contact me privately simply to work out what I'm saying regarding stances, and then, after that, if you can identify a point for debate, begin a new thread.

Best,
Ron

Hello,

Now that I've read some stern private messages, all right - that was too harsh. Several points:

1) Jonathan's concerns are irrelevant to stance, but they are not irrelevant to role-playing. None of them are stupid or unworthy of attention.

2) "Piffle" is too extreme. Lots of interesting points have come up, but my concern is with clear issues and coherent argument - which this thread grades low on, not because anyone's being dumb or muddled, but because people need to back up and look at the basic definitions, talk about those, and then see whether a question exists.

2) More people besides myself are capable of explaining stances. However, I do think that the particular knot faced by Jonathan is going to require a bit of parsing that I'm good at. Others shouldn't be excluded, of course.

3) The original topic of the thread concerned the distinctions within Author stance. That topic is over, done with, dealt with, and completely closed. I do think that this thread need not continue.

4) Perhaps the strongest possible thread on this matter would go as follows: describe an instance of play, using player and character terms as I did, and as Jonathan did later. I or whoever's interested will break it down in stance terms, with special attention to variables of play that are not relevant to stance.

Best,
Ron