Folks I need some help,

I'm trying to read up on games that encourage players to take author stance rather than actor stance. I'm especially interested in games that make it explicit enough so that everyone involved can see from the start "this is how its meant to be played" and the GM can't turn it into something else without consciously going against the game text.

I shall faithfully investigate any title that anyone points too, but I'm also very keen to hear your discussion of how the mechanics support (or how the text explicitly encourages) author stance. I still feel very out of my depth when I read through some of the posts on this board so please indulge me, a "Here's 3 titles, read 'em!" kind of post may not be enough to educate me! For example I already own Sorceror but would need help identifying all of the specific methods it and other games use to enforce author stance.

Many thanks :-)

Tony

Author Stance is more of a technique. Many groups use it rampantly and never realize it...figuring that that's just a normal way to play. There aren't many games I know of that make Author Stance explicit in the mechanics. Director Stance...yeah...lots of examples of that, but Author is more subtle.

Basically, Actor Stance is making a choice starting from the position of "what would my character do". If you go extreme in this case you attempt to purge any inkling of what the PLAYER wants the character to do (which I find some what masochistic, but that's just me), and in deep immersion the line between player and character (ideally) becomes so blurred that they are one and the same.

Author Stance on the other hand is making a choice starting from the position of "what do I as the PLAYER want my character to do" and then finding an "in character" reason to justify why the character would do this. This last part is important, because without it we're talking Pawn Stance where the character is relagated to just a tool of the player's will.

I don't know that you'd find many rules that are explicit about author stance, its more of a mind set I think than a mechanic. This is the sort of thing you'd see in the "what is roleplaying" section where instead of vehement exortations to "stay in character" the section could read in a manner that encourages a less "actor stance" position.

Sorcerer actually has the only author stance mechanic that springs to mind but you might have trouble noticing it simply by reading the text (I surely didn't) but in play (and only after Ron explained it a few times and I saw him run it) the "initiative" mechanic or lack there of is very much an Author Stance mechanic.

Basically, there is no initiative, per se. All players and GMs decide on actions they want to do, and then freely adjust, cancel, change, alter, or come up with new stuff until as a group who is trying to do what to whom is established. While I suppose it would be possible to approach this group planning phase strictly from a "what would my character try to do" and "would he be capable of noticing X and changing his plan" approach although it would be a severe breach of immersion I expect; in practice this is where all sorts of "I the player want to see X happen" stuff come into play with all sorts of justifications for the whys and hows.

Ralph's right, it's rarely explicit.

OTOH, lot's of games do it subtly. The most obvious type of mechanic that produces Author Stance play are mechanics that produce Director Stance play.

:-)

Sound confusing? Well, as Ralph points out, the most common reason to do Actor Stance is to get a certain kind of Immersion. If you're being dragged out of that regularly to be a director, then either you will just forget about trying to do Actor Stance Immersion at all, or you will develop the ability to jump between the two at will. Basically there is a similarity in both Actor Stance and Author Stance in that both require the player to consider only their own ideas of "what should happen". As long as the game explicitly promomtes one, it implicitly allows the other.

Consider InSpectres, for example.

Another way to promote Author Stance is via Gamism. Lot's of Gamist rules reward the player for thinking in a "gamey" or, IOW, metagame way. Thus there are some D&D groups who play in nothing but Author Stance (and some even in solely Pawn Stance). Yes, Level's and HP promote Author Stance. They are metagame (except in Japan, interestingly), and as such promote the player thinking in terms of the character in a metagame way.

No surprise that Ralph and I are right together with this topic. Universalis nearly prevent's the use of Actor Stance (not quite), and so therefore "promotes" Author Stance. One of the intro paragraphs nearly says that. Nearly. :-)

Mike

Some good games to try are Inspectres, as Mike has mentioned, Elfs, and Trollbabe. Elfs is fun for goofy one shots, and is pretty obvious about the differences between players and characters. I think Ron might have made it solely to point out that difference :P. Trollbabe is a little more vanilla, but if you get your players to read the section on requesting scenes, or pay attention to the stuff about using relationships, you'll find a lot of Author Stance stuff tucked away in there.

Chris

Valamir wrote: Sorcerer actually has the only author stance mechanic that springs to mind but you might have trouble noticing it simply by reading the text (I surely didn't) but in play (and only after Ron explained it a few times and I saw him run it) the "initiative" mechanic or lack there of is very much an Author Stance mechanic.

Basically, there is no initiative, per se. All players and GMs decide on actions they want to do, and then freely adjust, cancel, change, alter, or come up with new stuff until as a group who is trying to do what to whom is established. While I suppose it would be possible to approach this group planning phase strictly from a "what would my character try to do" and "would he be capable of noticing X and changing his plan" approach although it would be a severe breach of immersion I expect; in practice this is where all sorts of "I the player want to see X happen" stuff come into play with all sorts of justifications for the whys and hows.

Mike Holmes wrote: Another way to promote Author Stance is via Gamism. Lot's of Gamist rules reward the player for thinking in a "gamey" or, IOW, metagame way. Thus there are some D&D groups who play in nothing but Author Stance (and some even in solely Pawn Stance). Yes, Level's and HP promote Author Stance. They are metagame (except in Japan, interestingly), and as such promote the player thinking in terms of the character in a metagame way.

Chris wrote: Some good games to try are Inspectres, as Mike has mentioned, Elfs, and Trollbabe. Elfs is fun for goofy one shots, and is pretty obvious about the differences between players and characters. I think Ron might have made it solely to point out that difference :P. Trollbabe is a little more vanilla, but if you get your players to read the section on requesting scenes, or pay attention to the stuff about using relationships, you'll find a lot of Author Stance stuff tucked away in there.

Actually I think there are some older threads (I'm not very good at finding and posting links I'm afraid) where there was a lengthy debate over whether Author and Director actually exist seperately as stances. IIRC there was some move to limit stance to Actor and Author only and have "Directoral Power" be a different animal altogether. So, not surprising that you notice some places where they seem to blur together.

For me, and this is just my definition: if what the player chooses to do COULD have been done 100% in Actor stance than its not Director. If it would be impossible to accomplish in Actor stance then there's "something else" going on other than Author...and thats Director.

I base this distinction on the idea that to be Author Stance the player has to have some retroactive "in character" justification for the choice he made. If this were done completely in the player's head, whether he's using Actor or Author would be fairly indistinguishable. In other words, unless your a mind reader, you can't tell whether my thought process was "I'm going to do X because that's what my character would do" or "I as a player really want X, how can I justify having my character do that".

If you can tell (because miraculously an Ally appeared) then its Director.

Note: that many times you can tell Author stance simply because there are OOC player discussions happening that make it clear that that's whats going on. Barring those, however, Actor and Author is pretty invisible taken individually.

Ralph hit most of the points that I would have. Well said, Ralph. (We have to put a stop to this mutual admiration thing, you know).

I do have a few additional points, however (and probably unsurprisingly). :-)

First the other way to define Author Stance as opposed to Ralph's strict "only if not Author, Director" method is to go to the opposite extreme, and say that anything that's not strictly character intent is not Author. That is, saying that my character Bob want's to attack Rex this combat round is not the same as saying that Bob does attack Rex. It's subtle, but there. Has to do with the idea that a character isn't really in control of anything around him but his own intentions. Even his own legs may not do what he wants occasionally (which is why we roll for stuff in most games). This pertains to the Sorcerer initiative thing. The amount of arranging going on is enough that, from the "only if not Director, Author" definition, it's Director Stance. The player is controlling things to an extent that the character simply can't, really, haivng a bit of prescience that the character does not.

Which leads to another distinction that I like to make. Stance is involved with what I refer to as Power, and/or Authority. That is, a player can make certain decisions from certain stances, but a game may only authorize a player to have decisions made in such a manner "stick".

The most simple example is that in most games, a player will say, "Bob hits Rex." But what the player really means is, "Bob intends to hit Rex." For example, if Bob is tied up, we know it ain't gonna happen, and the statement is being made without any authority, and has no power to make everyone think that it's happened in the game. With Director stance authority, however, the player might say, "Bob's bonds break, and he hits Rex." That's pretty clear. But what if Bob is untied? And he says, "Bob hits Rex"? Well, assuming some sort of authority to make this stick, this is Author stance by Ralph's definition, and Director stance by mine. But the question can be answered in some cases by looking at the authority by which the player made the decision. Does the game say that "the player can decide the outcome of a conflict of this sort", or does it say, "if a character is in range to attack, and the defender is unaware, the player can choose to have him hit the defender." The first rule gives Director Stance Authority to the player. The second gives Author Stance authority, as it's simply saying that any intent by the character to hit in this circumstance will indeed result in a hit. So, use of the first rule is Director Stance on the part of the player, and the second is Author Stance.

The interesting thing is that in almost all cases, rules that give Author Stance Authority also give Actor Stance Authority (nobody cares if what you want happens to be the same as what the character wants). Since we can't know what the player is thinking in these cases, we can't limit him. Which is even more interesting because people try to limit the inverse all the time. That is, they try to prevent people from using a rule intended to give Actor Stance Authority in Author Stance. Usually referred to as OOC knowledge or inaporopriate separation of player/character knowledge and the like.

This is further complicated by the fact that players will often informally grab power that's not theirs by any previously agreed to rule. And thus we see the social level at work; this is where all the power is ultimately derived.

Didn't think it was that complicated, did ya?

Mike

P.S. how could I have forgotten Elfs? Yes, that's the only mechanic that I can think of with explicit Author Stance. It says that you should accomplish player goals by hosing the character. Completely counter to Actor Stance (though by some definitions possibly Director Stance).

I don't know about Tony, but you just succeeded in confusing the hell outta me...:-)

"Bob's bonds break because they are weak". Clearly director stance. Its something the player has declared happened that is entirely outside of the scope of Bob. (as opposed to "Bob flexes his big burly muscles to tear the bonds free")

But where you lose me is:

And he says, "Bob hits Rex"? Well, assuming some sort of authority to make this stick, this is Author stance by Ralph's definition, and Director stance by mine

Because in most games you have to roll.

What I mean to say is that the line must be drawn, as you yourself put it at the point of "what the character can control". Well, if normally you need to roll to hit, that indicates that there are outside factors involved in whether or not you really hit. The "default" level of control is simply at intent. You only control the character's intent in most systems. That's why in most systems "Rex hit's Bob" is actaully a statement of intent on Rex's part. You don't control the outcome.

Yes, if you say that a character can cause the Universe to explode with a thought, no roll required because that's an ability inherent to the character, that's Author stance if the player decides to employ the ability. But if the "default" rules say that the player has to normally roll to tie his shoes, and then uses some alternate mechanic to do so automatically without roll, then he's controling these outside factors that the roll represents, and therefore engaging in Director Stance.

The nature of the task means nothing. It's the nature of the authority that the game gives you to accomplish things that's important.

My point is not to say that my proposed definition is superior. It's just to show that there is no one single accepted definition at this point, and that it can be seen in many different ways (as was the outcome of those threads that you mention above). It also helps to point out that specific instances will be all about how the rule is presented and interpereted.

So, it's precisely my point that, if a character can autohit someone without a roll according to the rules, thus making it a character ability, it is Author Stance. But if the rule allowing the player to decide that the character hits is an exception to the normal rules (say he uses some metagame hero point or something), then he's controling things beyond the character, and thus, by one possible definition, using Director Stance.

Note that both definitions suffer from slippery lines. Mine is the point at which intent becomes reality. Can I fail to intend something? Morale rules can prevent you from intending what you like, theoretically. On your end, the problem is also with defining what a character is capable of. If I say that I cross the street, that's certainly something my character can do, but doesn't it also mean that I've said that the road is passable, and that I don't have to make my "Avoid Traffic" die roll?

Mike

I'm thinking you are making things much more complex than they need to be by tieing Stance and Authority together in this way...by orders of magnitude. I also don't find the reasoning to be that compelling.

What level of IIEE the player has authority to determine I don't see as having anything to do with Stance.

If I say "my character hits Rex" because I know my character and that's what he would do. I'm in Actor Stance. If I'm playing in a game where my level of authority is only to declare intent and not outcome, than the above is assumed to mean "my character attempts to hit Rex". Its Actor Stance.

If I'm playing in a game where my level of authority is such that I can declare outcome, than the above means I actually did hit Rex. Its still Actor Stance.

If I'm playing in a game where my level of authority is NORMALLY only to declare intent but I have special "bennies" that allow me to declare outcome if I spend them, and I do to make my hitting of Rex certain...its STILL Actor Stance. If the game doesn't have explicit bennies and the GM just allowed me to do it free form because it doesn't matter enough to roll...its STILL Actor Stance.

If I say "my character hits Rex with the tire iron that was laying up against the wall" and that tire iron was not previously established as being present than the use of the tire iron is director stance...but the decision to hit Rex is STILL Actor Stance.

If I say "my character refrains from hitting Rex because he knows that Rex has been having a bad day" because my character is the type of person who would cut someone slack that's Actor Stance.

If I as a player really didn't want to get involved in a scrum with Rex and am just using Rex's bad day as justification for keeping my character out of a fight, thats Author Stance. If the idea that Rex is having a bad day was something I just invented as a way getting that justification and up to that point we've had no inkling of what kind of day Rex has had, that's Director Stance.

Whether or not the GM will let me get away with grabbing a tire iron or inventing a bad day for Rex is where authority comes in. But it certainly doesn't change what kind of stance it was.

If the GM says "there's no tire iron there", he's asserting that I don't have the authority to direct. If I say "but this is a garage, of course there must be a tire iron, or heavy wrench or something" and the GM relents, than we just engaged in a turf war over authority, but the Stance hasn't changed.

No, I don't think there's much to be gained by intertwining the two concepts like you have.

First we're not discussing the difference between Actor and Author. I think we're all agreed as to what that is. So examples of that aren't going to help.

The real question is the example of the metagame bennies. At what point is creating a tire iron substantively different from saying that your opponent was in the right place at the right time to get hit? How does creating the tire iron for the character to use not relate to the character. In both cases there are factors external to the character than are being adjusted. Just because you see one as automatically part of the "scope of the character" and the other outside of it, doesn't mean that everyone will. It's a matter of perspective. To you, having Bob hit Rex is simply manipulating Bob. But from another POV, it's definitely saying something about Rex as well. Even if Rex is a big packing crate, some people might see being able to damage it as affecting something outside the character.

Again, I'm not saying that this is a superior definition, it's just one perspective that can be applied to the current definition.

But more important than that is the concept about how the authority is assigned. Which pertains even if we use your definition. If I have my character lift a boulder because he's strong enough to do so, that's Author Stance Authority provided by some Karma rule regarding strength and what it can do. But what if I say that I'm hit by a bolt of energy from my diety and that's what allows him to lift the boulder using a metagame bennie to do so. You'd have to call that Director Stance Authority because the ability to lift the stone comes only by allowing the player to manipulate the world about him. Either way, the result is the same, the character intends to lift the boulder and does. The difference in Stance is based off of where the player got the authority to make it happen.

Now this is an obvious example, and we could do without the addition to the theory if all examples were so obvious. But I put it to you that there are times where it's really hard to say whether or not the character is exerting control over the enviroment or not. What if the point spent in the example in question is not stated as being metagame, but some currency that the character has that represents his in-game devotion to his god. Is activating his strength then something he controls making it Author, or is it a relationship making manipulatig the god Director Stance? What about a Strength Spell from the god?

The point is that in each case the answer seems to me to be found in where the authority is derived from. As Ron points out in the Sim essay, if you think about it enough, it'll become obvious whether a particular Hero Point mechanic is metagame or not. Similarly it'll become obvious what's being controlled and by whom.

So, basically, I'm just reiterating what you've said regarding the fact that it's all about control, but pointing to the method for determining what counts as "character control" or not.

The distinction is important because then you can discuss the relationship between Stance and things like Metagame, and what the sources of Authority are (and how they are often ignored as well).

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
How does creating the tire iron for the character to use not relate to the character. In both cases there are factors external to the character than are being adjusted. Just because you see one as automatically part of the "scope of the character" and the other outside of it, doesn't mean that everyone will. It's a matter of perspective. To you, having Bob hit Rex is simply manipulating Bob. But from another POV, it's definitely saying something about Rex as well. Even if Rex is a big packing crate, some people might see being able to damage it as affecting something outside the character.

But more important than that is the concept about how the authority is assigned. Which pertains even if we use your definition. If I have my character lift a boulder because he's strong enough to do so, that's Author Stance Authority provided by some Karma rule regarding strength and what it can do. But what if I say that I'm hit by a bolt of energy from my diety and that's what allows him to lift the boulder using a metagame bennie to do so. You'd have to call that Director Stance Authority because the ability to lift the stone comes only by allowing the player to manipulate the world about him. Either way, the result is the same, the character intends to lift the boulder and does. The difference in Stance is based off of where the player got the authority to make it happen.

Well, we'll have to disagree (see, folks, Ralph and I do disagree on stuff). I think that as long as this remains unlooked at in deeper detail, that there will be times when confusion arises about the terms. Such that people like Tony have trouble seeing what's going on and start threads like this. His, "hadn't thought of that" responses early on seem to be because this sort of thing is so ambiguous. These are not fringe examples, I assert; they happen all the time. And to not look at it more closely means that we'll never have a deeper understanding of the principles.

Do I have a perfect answer? No, that's my point. None of us do.

Mike

Hi guys,

Looks like I missed out on a bit of the thread...Excuse me if I mix my Author and Director stance stuff up...

My very basic idea of the stances(and I'm sure someone will correct me on this) is:

Actor: I know what the character knows, I do what the character would do
Author: I make the character do cool things that would be interesting to see
Director: I make cool things happen with and around the character.

So with that in mind, I'll address Tony's question for more input about Trollbabe..

Trollbabe I see freely pulls in Author and Director stance, but does it in a way you don't need to get all theory-theory with your players. The rules teach the ideas to your players, so you can skip out trying to hash it out to them. The character interacts with another character because 1) It's the only way you can win the conflict and 2) that "other character" seemed interesting to the player for this conflict for whatever reason.

It's this ability to freely start making things happen, such as requesting scenes, jumping into other scenes, or bringing folks or items into scenes that makes players subconciously aim more for what is interesting rather than "what my character knows". Granted, this freely mixes Author and Director stance, but its structured in a way that the players can get it right away and not worry about "abusing power" or floundering, which is some of the concerns folks get with Inspectres or the Pool.

Finally, Trollbabe gives power to the players over requesting, and handling conflict, which I think is a very important aspect to expressing character. When in conflict, you can decide if you just want to bail out early, or be committed towards this, in which case the conflict becomes pivotal, risking relationships and life and limb in the process. You decide what this conflcit means to your character, which is a very Author sort of thing.

Finally to go back to your original point:

I'm trying to read up on games that encourage players to take author stance rather than actor stance. I'm especially interested in games that make it explicit enough so that everyone involved can see from the start "this is how its meant to be played" and the GM can't turn it into something else without consciously going against the game text.

See, it's exactly that sort of definition that baffles me. At what point am I controlling the character, and at what point am I manipulating the world? Sometimes it's both, or unclear. Folks seem to have some intuitive idea of where characters end and the world begins. I don't. May have something to do with the idea that I don't even see my own body as part of myself. Goes to the fact that the term Person or Character are not well defined for these purposes.

Bankuei wrote: Trollbabe I see freely pulls in Author and Director stance, but does it in a way you don't need to get all theory-theory with your players. The rules teach the ideas to your players, so you can skip out trying to hash it out to them. The character interacts with another character because 1) It's the only way you can win the conflict and 2) that "other character" seemed interesting to the player for this conflict for whatever reason.

Well, Mike, in Trollbabe, I honestly don't know where one begins and the other ends. In something more like D&D, I see author as being a drift where folks use OOC knowledge to have their character choose to do interesting things, with only minimal plausibility as the requirement.

That might be an interesting excercise...Play D&D with the explicit intention of playing author stance throughout...

Chris

Huh, I see Author Stance as what D&D most promotes. No drift at all. And usually the sub-set called Pawn Stance.

Mike

Hi there,

THING ONE
Gentlemen, I believe we all established a while ago that "D&D" isn't going to be useful term, as everyone has a different experience and emotional commitment to what playing a game of that title is "like." The Cargo Cults, remember?

Maybe another game title would be useful.

THING TWO
On a more general note, is this helpful?

Overall
Stance refers to the announcement component of IIEE. (Note that "announcement" is handled differently in different games.)

Actor Stance
- The announcement concerns the character's actions.
- The player is operating strictly by his or her personal identification with the character and/or by knowledge and concerns that are identified with the character by others.

Author Stance
- The announcement concerns the character's actions.
- The player is operating from an agenda that the character has no information about or awareness of. This agenda may concern in-game events, out-of-game events, or both.

Director Stance
- The announcement concerns a character, in-game object, or in-game event that is not that person's personal player character.
- The player is operating necessarily from an agenda that the character has no information about or awareness of.

See, it's like you have two issues, Aa or Bb. Actor Stance is AB. Author stance is Ab. Director Stance is ab. You can't have aB (character's actions, no identification); it's not possible.

Note that the GM is just as much a player as anyone else in this system. This is very important. It means that a GM is most often in Director Stance but shifts into Author or Actor Stances for characters that are particularly important to him or her for whatever reason.

Champions and other superhero games GMs will recognize how much stance-shifting they have to do during an elaborate combat scenes with really great villains, for instance.

THING THREE
Mike, I think we should take the IIEE vs. Stance thing to its own thread. At this point, I agree with Ralph - confounding the two issues is muddying the waters. I do think, however, that the two separate concept-sets have identifiable relationships and "usable shared space" between them, just as GNS and Stances do.

Best,
Ron

Chris wrote: Finally, Trollbabe gives power to the players over requesting, and handling conflict, which I think is a very important aspect to expressing character. When in conflict, you can decide if you just want to bail out early, or be committed towards this, in which case the conflict becomes pivotal, risking relationships and life and limb in the process. You decide what this conflcit means to your character, which is a very Author sort of thing.

Hi Tony,

One last thing ... you used the phrase "making them" get into Author Stance, and I think that's a red flag. Mechanics and social elements of play can encourage Stances, but Stances are behaviors - they aren't something you make people do.

All of the games you're talking about are extremely oriented toward the characters' decisions being important, so important, in fact, that they make the story (as opposed to, say, eventually getting to the villain's hideout for the planned fight-scene).

People aren't going to believe you when you tell them this, so all you can do is play - and watch people gradually understand their participatory-power to create the story, and watch them become more comfortable with Author Stance (or rather, with fluid and fun Stance-switching as the moment calls for it).

It might just have been an accident of short-hand writing, but I thought I'd call attention to it for you to consider.

Best,
Ron

Hi Tony,

I think I've miscommunicated my idea. Let me clarify what's going on. Traditionally, conflict and character are linked in stories, and controlled by one author. Is Hercules strong? Conflict: Wrestle the Lion. The conflict tells us about the character and defines the character. In most rpgs the conflict/character control gets split up between GM and players. Since in many games the players can only control their characters and define their characters through their actions, players slide into actor stance.

Ok, theory part done, now to the concrete part.

conflicts that require a sequence of player commitments

Aaah! (light bulb... I hope) Is that the way to do it then, make the traits that a character can bring to bear on a conflict, all have identical impact on the conflict at hand, but potentially very different impacts on the future of the story.

- The player is operating from an agenda that the character has no information about or awareness of. This agenda may concern in-game events, out-of-game events, or both.

Bankuei wrote: What I am saying with Trollbabe in particular, is that conflict 1) can be declared by the player, "I want a scene where the Dark Lord tries to tempt me" 2) can be determined HOW important to the game it is by the player("I'll make the 3rd reroll...I'm not going to give into him no matter what!")

So technically, Rune, would also be a good game to look at for Author stance, since the agenda is based off "winning" a scenario, which the character has no idea about. Riddle of Steel can probably also slide into Author stance rather easily as well...

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Tony,

One last thing ... you used the phrase "making them" get into Author Stance, and I think that's a red flag. Mechanics and social elements of play can encourage Stances, but Stances are behaviors - they aren't something you make people do.

All of the games you're talking about are extremely oriented toward the characters' decisions being important, so important, in fact, that they make the story (as opposed to, say, eventually getting to the villain's hideout for the planned fight-scene)...

...It might just have been an accident of short-hand writing, but I thought I'd call attention to it for you to consider.

Tony Irwin wrote: For the rerolls I guess what I said about conflicts requiring (or permitting) a series of commitments from the player would cover that, but then I'm not sure how that couldn't just become actor stance: I'll make the reroll/spend the blood point/whatever because "that's what my character would do"? Does that mean that author stance can be used to reinforce sim play? ie I'll spend my points to ensure that what should happen, does happen.

M. J. Young wrote: Now, what if we had a mechanic which the player could use merely to say, no, he wants to succeed more than usual--in this case, he's putting extra effort into it, and so will give it that extra umph necessary to get it to work. That's represented by a metagame resource, a sort of "how many times can you give it your all" system. It thus could indeed be a simulationist mechanic, if part of the world simulated is that sometimes the characters are able to go above and beyond the norm when something is important to them.

Maybe you already understood this; I wasn't certain from your post, so I thought I'd expand it a bit.

I refer to this phenomenon as Pseudo In-game (which is a shitty term, but I've yet to come up with something better). That is, it's obviously a metagame mechanic, or would be, except it's given some sort of explanation in in-game terms. Karma is always my favorite term for something like this. Sounds like it's just some pool of character metaphysical ability. But usually it's not really.

Is this a bad idea, to confound the issue? Well, I see it as an attempt to allow metagame, but to also simultaneously allow players to not expericence the disjuncture that some report on use of metagame. Does it work? That's hard to say. Is it problematic? Almost certainly so, as you've identified.

Still, it's interesting to think about. One thing that I think a lot of people appreciate around here are the "Dramatic Editing" rules from Adventure! Here's a perfect example of a metagame mechanic that makes no bones about it's metagame nature. It's not a character ability, it's a player thing. As such, there's never any confusion on what's appropriate to use it for.

Mike

In fact, as I recall, the rules for Dramatic Editing are quite specific that the CHARACTER has no idea at all that this is going on, stressing that it doesn't represent any sort of karmic power on the part of the PC.

I enjoy metagame rules that have an in game reason for existing (in fact my current project uses this extensively). One problem with them though is when the metagame effect isn't really a very good simulation of the in game justification. I've seen people argue vehemently over the way "Void" should work based on various eastern philosophical mumbo jumbo* that the game rules didn't fit.

*where "mumbo jumbo" is defined as anything which requires sophisticated thought that I have no interest in :-)

Right, in a fantastic world of your own devising, this is often a simple thing.

"In the world of Klaytrosand, there is a unifying source of power called Soos. When someone is in tune with this force they can use it to alter the laws of probabilty in their favor, but this simultaneously reduces the measure to which they are in tune with Soos."

Game Effect: Soos is a pool of dice that you can add to any roll.

What's interesting here is how you get the metagame currency in the first place (this is Ron's point from the Sim essay to give credit). If I get Soos for slaying beasts of the dark, that's very in-game. If I get Soos for playing my character well, that's metagame, obviously. Sometimes it's less obvious, however, like getting the points for the character adhering to type.

"Warriors of Glahal get a one die of Soos whenever they say something witty in battle."

That's getting less clear. But it sounds like it could be functional.

I think that the thing you have to concentrate on is rewarding behavior that you'd like to see. Then the question of metagame or not becomes fairly moot, no?

Mike

Our intent - I'd have to re-read to see how well we conveyed it - with dramatic editing was that generally characters wouldn't be aware of it in detail but that they might very well realize they've got remarkable luck and the the like. Pulp heroes often do. I have a particular fondness for the moment early on in Attack of the Clones where Anakin immediately leaps out a window miles above ground level to pursue a fleeing bad guy. He knows he can do it, and this is a good thing for a pulp hero to know. (Obi-Wan's later line "I hate it when he does that" just speaks volumes, too...) They just don't realize just how far this celebration of specialness can go.

Cool point. The extent to which a character is aware of how well the powers that be favor him is a very important consideration.

The Force is a great example of a mechanic that rides the line, however. The characters are aware that they have a mastery of this power, and as such it's much more in-game than what the Pulp character feels in Adventure!. They simply seem to know that they are very competent and that diving in headlong is the best way to accomplish things. So, yes, the universe ends up reinforcing the character's belief in a certain course of action. But the character's are also just as capable of thinking that they're hosed in a very RL way.

"Dr. Skeelevius has us trapped, there's no way we'll ever escape...Professor Wonder! How did you get here?"

Thus the character can follow pulp tropes. If he knew that he had the power to be rescued (as in the Force), then he'd never say that first line above.

Also, we could talk about the potential for self-referentiality in such mechanics. Heinlien's characters would realize that the universe was favoring them against the odds, and thus discover that they were fictional. Cue Over the Edge.

Mike

There was an incident a while back in a game of L5R, where my character had become tainted by unknowingly making a pact with an Oni. He begged one of the other PCs to kill him before he turned into a monster (he wasn't in a position to ask his daimyo permission to commit seppuku, and he probably wouldn't have gotten it even if he could ask). It went like this:

"Noryoshi-san, you must kill me! Ed, OOC, don't kill me."

Ed got the hint, and Noryoshi refused to kill a friend, and vowed to find a way to help me, and it was all dramatical and stuff. Other players have picked up on this and have done similar things since then.

-- Ben