Hi Guys! I'm geeting into GNS nitty gritty today.

I looked at the FAQ. Here are the relevant sections:

In Actor Stance, the player is actually playing his character in a method-actor sense, making decisions based strictly on what the character knows, perceives, and feels. In this stance, the character can't change anything or have any impact except through the character's own world-view and actions.

Many people prefer the word "immersive" for this stance, which is perfectly acceptable from our point of view..."

and

Immersive Roleplaying
Immersive roleplaying, or immersive mode is a much more intense, restrictive version of IC mode. [...] As it says in John Kim's faq, "the player begins to channel the character." For all practical intents and purposes, in this mode, the player simply is the character. The player does not use any OOC information, whether using such information is allowed or not. The player does not acknowledge OOC concepts such as game mechanics. The player stays strictly in Actor stance, as well as remaining strictly IC (in-character). The player must trust the GM implicitly...


I certainly haven't read all the threads on this one as it's hard to sort them out so I may be going over old ground.

Anyway, I'll start with an anecdote. In Marathon Man Dustin Hoffman plays a character who gets involved with a Nazi war criminal played by Lawrence Olivier (do US actors not want to be tarred with the bad guy brush or something? It always seems to be us Limeys carrying the can, but I digress).

The title refers to Hoffman's character's running practice and the fact that to warn somebody, I forget who but it's irrelevant, of impending doom he must run a long way in a short time after having just suffered dental torture.

I'm getting there, stay with me!

To act in the very next scene, Hoffman goes off on a long run and comes back exhausted, but happy that he'll be able to be convincing. Larry, OK, Lord Larry, takes one look at this smelly, exhausted and sweat drenched guy standing next to him and says, in a withering tone, "But dear boy, why don't you just act?".

So you can see what I'm getting at: Actor stance does not require immersion. You can play the part of the PC without external reference whilst still not trying actually to be the character.

Given that this is my preferred way of playing and I know that I always maintain a certain amount of detachment between myself and the PC, I'd like it more recognised that the Actor stance does not imply immmersion which seems to be the inference from the FAQ.

Steve
Co-editor
http://www.ptgptb.org

[ This Message was edited by: GB Steve on 2001-09-07 08:08 ]

Steve, your distinction makes perfect sense. I think of Actor and Immersive/Possessor as two distinct things, with Actor being about presenting the character to others and Possessor about discovering/experiencing the character for yourself. One is outer-directed, the other inner-directed. By the immersive player's standard, you may have no idea when he is "role-playing well," because it's not about you. But for the actor player, it's all about you.

The FAQ may not ever reflect this distinction, but not to worry.

Best,


Jim

So you can see what I'm getting at: Actor stance does not require immersion. You can play the part of the PC without external reference whilst still not trying actually to be the character.

I'm in complete agreement with this viewpoint. It's probably something that just needs better articulation.

Logan

Hey,

Actor stance without Immersion is fine, and I think that IS stated as such in the document. If others aren't seeing it, it can be stated more clearly.

Immersion without Actor, though, is very hard for me to imagine. Is that due to my misunderstanding something?

If not, then Immersion (which is NOT a stance, but an action) does not occur without first getting into Actor stance. That's the way I see it at present.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I think we have the crux of a problem in understanding here. Certainly you can have immersive without actor. The point of actor stance it seems to me (and I think was indicated by Jim) that the player portrays the character as an actor does to others.

Immersive doesn't require this. Just as I can't act my characters part in a CRPG, many players have no interest in doing so in a tabletop RPG (TRPG?). They instead immerse themselves in the mechanics of the simulation, in the detail of the game. So, while my friend Matt doesn't want to see his the result of his character's rolls for a perception check so that he can further immerse himself in the simulation provided without distraction, neither does he want to portray his character to the other players. He sees it quite well in his minds eye when he says, "Lognar discusses direstions with the barkeep." What is this referred to as? "Pawn" stance? Can still be very immersive.

From that POV it certainly is a selfish stance to take. You are not out to entertain the other players or GM (though this still happens inadvertently). Just out to experience it themselves. This is something that RPGs can provide that stage cannot, thinking about it.

Mike

Mike,

See, that's what I don't buy. What you're describing sounds like the BASELINE requirement for role-playing: the player simply puts any effort at all into imagining what's going on. "Immersion" as referenced in nearly any text I've seen it in - except when it's described as you have - is presented as an ADDITIONAL element of role-playing, not its fundamental requirement.

This is the same reasoning that the term "Exploration" brought up to me, and why I don't see it as a synonym for Simulationism.

Break it down:
1, biggest) Role-playing of ANY kind requires some imaginative effort. This, Mike, is what you seem to be describing as "immersion," and interestingly, you seem to be applying it to ANY aspect of play, whether setting or event resolution or characterization, or anything.

I'm calling this very thing "Exploration," freely admitting that I'm co-opting the Jester's term in a way he doesn't like. I do that because any and every example given for Exploration corresponds to that imaginative effort, and ONLY to it, across examples.

2, a big category) Actor stance within role-playing, and I'd like to remind everyone that stance IS a player-character relationship, NOT a player-player relationship. I think the secondary implication of the term "actor" as performance art has tended to muddy the issue.

The Actor stance is defined as deciding upon character actions based strictly on what the character (fictionally) feels, perceives, and knows.

3, a smaller category) Possessor stance is one name for feeling, thinking, and essentially "channelling" the fictional character (or it feels that way, anyway). I cannot in any way see this existing except as a subcategory of Actor stance.

And here, #3 nested in #2, is what I see referenced whenever any role-playing text urges "immersion." It's exactly what the D&D3E book calls immersion. It's exactly what people want players to do in the Turku dogma. It's the ideal for many LARPing groups. And in each case, people call it "immersion."

So I don't see how we can keep using this word if it's supposed to be BOTH #1, which is the necessary foundation fo role-playing at all, AND #3 nested in #2, which is an optional (and hard-to-maintain) approach to one's character's actions and depiction.

In continuing this discussion, I'd like to see concrete examples of real play, not generalizations, so we can be talking about the same, actual, behavioral phenomena exhibited by real human beings.

Best,
Ron

My understanding of immersion with respect to roleplaying is that the player takes on the complete mindset of the character. Essentially, when you're talking to a player immersed in character, you're talking to the character. That's the Elaytijist ideal. The player isn't interested in entertaining others or rolling dice. He's interested in mentally being the character. Toward that end, it's not an act, but it's still part of Actor stance. Rather, I think it's an extreme condition of Actor stance, IC mode of play.

Now, here's the weird part. The player is not the character. Ergo, the player and the character may be very different people with different attitudes and abilities. A person who has a hard time talking to people may play a character who is smooth and gifted with a silver tongue. In that case, it would be perfectly appropriate for the player, (immersed in his character), to say "I walk up to the bar and ask the bartender for directions." In the player's mind, he sees his idealized character smoothly parleying with the bartender, just the way the player would want it to be in that scene. Immersion is maintained, but this aspect of the roleplaying might be seen as less than ideal because the player is not improvising every line of dialogue. Yet, it's perfectly correct for the player to present his character this way because it may save time in a trivial situation or it may help the player maintain SOD. It would be worse to roleplay through every syllable of a meaningless segueway or to force the player to stumble through his improvised lines in the name of roleplaying, especially if smooth conversation is an aspect of the character, not the player.

Pawn mode is completely different. Pawn mode is, if anything, an extreme case of Actor stance, OOC mode. I think Jim pointed that out pretty well. In that case, the player doesn't relate to the character at all, except to see the character as stats, abilities, and a means of enforcing the player's will in the game world.

Logan

Logan, unless I'm misreading you, in your last paragraph you mean AUTHOR stance for Pawn mode.

Best,
Ron

What are the current definitions for stances? I thought that there were four, Actor, Author, Director, and Audience. But now I think that we seem to be defining more, and trying to relate them to each other.

A simpler way to look at this, it seems to me, is to consider the motivations of the player (which may well subsequently drive how the player plays). The motive of Immersion is to feel something of what the player does, by my personal definition.

I have personally experienced players (and given examples of them) who are interested in feeling what the character feels but not interested in portraying the character via role-playing (i.e. acting the role by speaking IC). When they play, this would put them firmly into the Actor stance as defined above. But that doesn't do me any good to lump them in there, because designing a good game for these guys will take more than looking at what makes for good Actor power. It'll take a consideration of how to immerse them, and how to free them from the need to act the role of their character.

So, we can do one of two things. Either we can create a new category of Stance to describe this phenomenon (perhaps "Explorer"?), or we can just start discussing things from the POV of motives in play. The problem with the first idea is that there are probably multitudinous functional combinations of techniques employed which would make for a long list of stances. Which is why I think we should discuss how to give players the power to do what it is that they desire. Whether it is being immersed, acting, or both. Or is there another solution?

BTW, I'm starting to feel like my player's motivations are being marginalized. You may not have the same motivations, or see this as lazy role-playing or something, but why aren't their motivations just as legimate as the next players? I've been trying to get them to change their stripes for a while, and I'm beginning to feel like a cadd for doing so. Perhaps I'm just not playing to my audience correctly.

Mike

"BTW, I'm starting to feel like my player's motivations are being marginalized."

Mike, I can't help you with that. I can only say, over and over, that it is PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT to take any GNS mode or combination thereof, and any stance or what-have-you that helps to get you there. No one is saying, on this thread or any other, that Actor stance or immersion or whatever is second-class role-playing.

The ONLY things I have ever claimed that involve "better" or "worse" are (1) elements of game design that facilitate or frustrate a given outlook, and (2) combinations of players' goals, from person to person, that tend not to work well together. My concern is function, and consistent function, not "rating."

No judgment of good or bad or lazy or crappy or mean or what. I learned long ago that I cannot help - no, not with the most careful phraseology - people from reading "You think I suck! How dare you?" into the most basic material.

Even a post like this one will be read, by some, as either a massive case of denial on my part or an outrageous, bald-faced lie.

Best,
Ron

Ron,

I think you are ‘getting a little to close’ to your own personal jargon here. To make this clearer, much as I don’t want to, I am going to have to go point for point to demonstrate this apparent ‘tunnel vision.’ Don’t take this as some kind of attack, I hope to tie it all back together near the end.

Ron Edwards wrote:
See, that's what I don't buy. What you're describing sounds like the BASELINE requirement for role-playing: the player simply puts any effort at all into imagining what's going on. "Immersion" as referenced in nearly any text I've seen it in - except when it's described as you have - is presented as an ADDITIONAL element of role-playing, not its fundamental requirement.

1, biggest) Role-playing of ANY kind requires some imaginative effort. This, Mike, is what you seem to be describing as "immersion," and interestingly, you seem to be applying it to ANY aspect of play, whether setting or event resolution or characterization, or anything.

I'm calling this very thing "Exploration," freely admitting that I'm co-opting the Jester's term in a way he doesn't like. I do that because any and every example given for Exploration corresponds to that imaginative effort, and ONLY to it, across examples.

2, a big category) Actor stance within role-playing, and I'd like to remind everyone that stance IS a player-character relationship, NOT a player-player relationship. I think the secondary implication of the term "actor" as performance art has tended to muddy the issue.

The Actor stance is defined as deciding upon character actions based strictly on what the character (fictionally) feels, perceives, and knows.

3, a smaller category) Possessor stance is one name for feeling, thinking, and essentially "channeling" the fictional character (or it feels that way, anyway). I cannot in any way see this existing except as a subcategory of Actor stance.

And here, #3 nested in #2, is what I see referenced whenever any role-playing text urges "immersion." It's exactly what the D&D3E book calls immersion. It's exactly what people want players to do in the Turku dogma. It's the ideal for many LARPing groups. And in each case, people call it "immersion."

So I don't see how we can keep using this word if it's supposed to be BOTH #1, which is the necessary foundation for role-playing at all,

AND #3 nested in #2, which is an optional (and hard-to-maintain) approach to one's character's actions and depiction.

In continuing this discussion, I'd like to see concrete examples of real play, not generalizations, so we can be talking about the same, actual, behavioral phenomena exhibited by real human beings.

Ron,

It'd be easier for you to read correctly if I'd written correctly. But I didn't. I meant that Pawn mode is at the opposite end of Actor-IC from Immersive. The player treats the character as a gamepiece with the powers and abilities of that gamepiece. This is a very different attitude from immersion. Yet, I wonder... If one plays in pawn mode and another plays in immersive mode using the same rules and neither uses much acting, would people be able to tell the difference?

Logan

Three replies.

ONE: CONTINUING WITH MIKE
I was way too grumpy. Sorry about being terse. However, I think my point stands.

TWO: FANG
As I have an extensive background in theater, including both performance and theory, being lectured about what "method" means is irritating - even though you are right about its usual misinterpretation. However, you are not right simply to assume knowledge of Stance definitions based on that medium.

I submit to you that the terms for Stance do NOT originate with me and have an illustrious, well-documented history for role-playing that clearly states what th'hell they mean. Part of that statement is NOT to over-analogize with theater or film, as role-playing has qualities as an art/activity that render the analogy incomplete.

Therefore the reader's claim "just to know" what Actor stance is because he has a familiarity with acting, for film and stage, is not valid. The dialogue about Stance reaches back to the early 90s and has to be assimilated. If you have objections to this state of affairs, take them to John Kim et al., not to me.

Most importantly, I vehemently and quickly deny ALL similarity of my use of "Exploration" and "imaginative commitment" to ANYTHING to do with "the narrative." I am discussing something that - until one further mental step is made - has NO GOAL beyond the enjoyment of what is being imagined. Therefore committing to a narrative or anything like it is NOT included. By adding this content into the concept I describe, you have potentially harmed the debate seriously.

Again, for everyone: Narrativism, Gamism, and Simulationism are things one does (behaviors) in the form of role-playing decisions WITH the "imaginative commitment." They are next steps, what one does.

THREE: LOGAN
I believe you and I are pretty much in accord with the basics about Stance. I think there are three fundamental ones in role-playing: Actor, Author, and Director. I think that terms like Pawn, Possessor, and Audience are either subcategories or pulling in issues that are not themselves Stance.

For the record, I consider Pawn to be a subset of Author, Possessor to be related in some ways to Actor but NOT itself a stance (as detailed above), and Audience to be way too loosey-goosey to be discussed easily or even positively identified as a stance.

Best,
Ron

stupid question from the back, just to clarify

On 2001-09-07 23:16, Ron Edwards wrote:

Again, for everyone: Narrativism, Gamism, and Simulationism are things one does (behaviors) in the form of role-playing decisions WITH the "imaginative commitment." They are next steps, what one does.

David,

Your brackets have it just right.

My only quibble is that the Exploration level applies to ANYTHING being imagined that has to do with role-playing in the broad sense, not just playing a character. It applies to setting, situation, setting-history, things that might happen later, or anything that grabs our attention and prompts that mental activity at all.

And I think it's clear - I hope, anyway - that at no point have we separated GM from players in this construction. (Damn I wish we had a good word for "live person involved in role-playing.")

Best,
Ron

And I think it's clear - I hope, anyway - that at no point have we separated GM from players in this construction. (Damn I wish we had a good word for "live person involved in role-playing.")

Um, Jim, except for one thing: the character is fictional. Feelings and sensations aside, the player creates the character. This creation may not have much verbal or accessible aspect to it, so that it "feels" like being possessed, but the creation is one-way. The vector you speak of is always player to character.

If anyone is SERIOUSLY going to claim that an artistic or imaginative creator is REALLY "possessed" by an external entity, such that a fictional character moves and speaks through the real person ... well, that moves me into "go back to your planet" mode.

Users are real. Characters are created by them via imagination and communication with other users. I readily acknowledge that "possessor" role-playing feels otherwise. To claim that that feeling represents an actual character-to-player causal vector is ... well, bonkers.

Therefore "possessor" is an experiential term, and in stance terms, I *still* can only perceive it (via myself or via observing others) as a behavior, not itself a stance, embedded within the stance called Actor.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I dunno if I'm going to adopt the "user" terminology, although I appreciate the humor in it.

I think I'll side with Jim on this one. Some writers speak of hearing their muses. Some writers also often speak of having their characters living in their heads while they're writing. I'm sure those writers at times give free reign to those characters and write much more interesting stuff than if they'd used their usual thought processes alone. I see no reason why it's not the same with roleplayers. The character is fictional, but it has a sort of life of its own. The thing is, it's built from facets of the creator's (player's, writer's, GM's) personality. Maybe not everyone experiences this sort of thing. Maybe not everyone can. I don't know. I do know that people are complex and I think most of us have a certain duality in our psyches. Writers like JMS rely on it in order to work.

Look at it this way: When we need to make a decision, we may weigh the pros and cons; have a sort of internal debate. At that point, with whom are we debating?
How do we reach the final decision?

That said, I'll go back to my own planet.

Logan

On 2001-09-08 13:07, Ron Edwards wrote:

If anyone is SERIOUSLY going to claim that an artistic or imaginative creator is REALLY "possessed" by an external entity, such that a fictional character moves and speaks through the real person ... well, that moves me into "go back to your planet" mode.

Go back to your planet, all of you!

Folks, really. I am fully aware, from my experiences in role-playing, writing, acting, fighting, and many other circumstances, of the subjective phenomena you are describing. Yes, it feels like that.

But don't - for one second - attempt to speak of actual processes and decisions by the real humans as being performed or originated by anyone besides the real humans. It is not the usual mental process we tend to think of as "I do something," but it is OUR OWN mental process, of its kind, nonetheless.

As usual, whenever I make this point, people misunderstand. They think, "Ron is saying that people are creating in some kind of controlled, I-see-myself-doing-X kind of way. That's funny, when I do it, it often feels as if it's arriving externally. Poor Ron, scientist that he is, he just doesn't understand art."

I am saying no such thing. I am fully acknowledging the subjective experience you are all describing. I am happy to experience and utilize it myself when it occurs. However, it is still a creative process of one's own mind; it is tapped into in a way that does not admit easily of verbalizing or on-the-spot awareness.

Please review my points in this thread and their purpose. We are discussing a sensation or mode of creativity that is commonly experienced and acknowledged. We are also discussing stances. I am claiming that that sensation/mode is often associated - and may even require - a particular stance. It is a reasonable point and I have not yet seen any refutation thereof.

Best,
Ron

Ron, yes, it's a fiction, metaphor or delusion. The point is a) it's a material fiction, metaphor or delusion - one can argue that for many creators it's a necessary one too; b) it (immersion) can be a goal of play - some people play RPGs because they want to get that feeling.

I suspect that when I move to the planet of people who have felt compelled to reject "the Edwards model," it will be because its behaviorist approach is not just inconsistently applied but misguided, as inadequate for RPG theory as it was for psychology. Humans have intentionality. People game because they mean to game. An RPG theory that fails to account for the intentions of gamers is incomplete, indeed woefully so. It is not scientific but scientistic. It puts bad science in the proper place of good criticism. It retards rather than advancing understanding. (Yes, I am a Searleite.)

The difference between actor and possessor is clear and has been clearly stated - presenting a character to others versus discovering it for yourself. That difference has implications for design aspects from attribute scores through task resolution to reward systems. It makes different demands on session conduct. Recognizing the distinction can even be crucial to a GM's ability to tell when someone is "having fun" (the biggest box). A number of us have pointed out the materiality of the distinction. At some point the contents of a given model become less important than recognizing that we know what we know.

Best,


Jim

Hi Jim,

"An RPG theory that fails to account for the intentions of gamers is incomplete, indeed woefully so."

Not guilty. You have just paraphrased what GNS theorizing is all about, as well as its application to design.

Your rephrase of the claim regarding Actor stance and immersion is significant, because it relies on a meaning for Actor stance that I do not accept - "communicating the character to others." This phrase is not useful, as it can mean practically anything. Enormous numbers of role-playing actions carry out this function, including all of the stances.

I have stated, over and over, what *I* mean by "actor stance." I have stated, over and over, how it relates to exactly that form of immersion that we all recognize and (to various degrees) enjoy.

Why can't anyone seem to address this? I've made a strong point. No one has managed even to paraphrase it accurately, much less offer debate. I get (1) insupportable claims regarding mystic external entities, and (2) yet another terminology dispute. And now I get (3) caricaturing of my views into behaviorism.

On second thought, never mind. The original question of this thread was answered and (apparently) agreed upon: no, actor stance does not require immersion. I trust that GBSteve is OK with this, and if that issue requires any more discussion, I'm happy to continue.

The associated or expanded issue, of what immersion might be and how it relates to actor stance, has apparently touched off too many sore points. When I have to reiterate a point three times in less than 15 posts among us, and when the discussion scatters into weird places this quickly, it means that people are feeling threatened. That's enough for me to call attention to my point having been made, and to sign off.

Best,
Ron

Hmmm... first I apollogise for any consternation I've caused. Yes, Ron, I think that we all agreed with your original point, but then you made a further one which I disagreed with. Perhaps I should have begun a new thread, but it certainly seemed unnecessary at the time. Again, if that was a mistake, I apollogise. Also, I probably did come off as threatened, for which I also apollogise. I know that the general ethic of the forge is one of RPG "ecumenicism". I was merely intent on trying to point out that the current stance model didn't do much for my players' needs.

Anyhow, that having been said, I think that we have made some interesting points. I think that what Jim was saying really crystallized (if you'll allow me a cliche) my thoughts on this subject. Essentially, stance looks at player behavior, or certainly seems to us to, while what I am (and others, I sense) looking for is the motivations behind the behaviors. To a certain extent these desires lead to certain types of actual play, moderated by the design of the game to an extent. The intent of looking at the motivations behind these behaviors is to find ways to create games that cater to these particular desires.

Perhaps (and at the risk of complicating things unnecessarily; still I'll posit) we should consider speaking of motivations in addition to stances. So while one might be frequently use actor mode, his motivation for doing so might be "Theatric Portrayal" or it might be "Immersion in Character" or it might be both simultaneously. The point being that I can envision mechanics that would better reward any of these three motivational positions.

BTW, to all present, many have pointed out that the term Immersion is confusing due to the fact that it seems to have different implications for different people. This has been one of Ron's assertions from day one. And this thread is probably proof of that. Still, there seems to be an impetus to using it, and that alone may indicate that it needs to be investigated further and clarified.

All IMHO,

Mike Holmes

Ron,

Since you mean to take my words out of context without even citing them, I reply in piecemeal of yours.

Ron Edwards wrote:
As I have an extensive background in theater, including both performance and theory, being lectured about what "method" means is irritating

even though you are right about its usual misinterpretation.

However, you are not right simply to assume knowledge of Stance definitions based on that medium.

I submit to you that the terms for Stance do NOT originate with me and have an illustrious, well-documented history for role-playing that clearly states what th'hell they mean.

Therefore the reader's claim "just to know" what Actor stance is because he has a familiarity with acting, for film and stage, is not valid. The dialogue about Stance reaches back to the early 90s and has to be assimilated. If you have objections to this state of affairs, take them to John Kim et al., not to me.

Most importantly, I vehemently and quickly deny ALL similarity of my use of "Exploration" and "imaginative commitment" to ANYTHING to do with "the narrative."

I am discussing something that - until one further mental step is made - has NO GOAL beyond the enjoyment of what is being imagined. Therefore committing to a narrative or anything like it is NOT included. By adding this content into the concept I describe, you have potentially harmed the debate seriously.

I think there are three fundamental ones in role-playing: Actor, Author, and Director.

I have stated, over and over, what *I* mean by "actor stance." I have stated, over and over, how it relates to exactly that form of immersion that we all recognize and (to various degrees) enjoy.

Why can't anyone seem to address this? I've made a strong point. No one has managed even to paraphrase it accurately, much less offer debate. I get

(1) Insupportable claims regarding mystic external entities,

(2) Yet another terminology dispute,

(3) Caricaturing of my views into behaviorism.

On second thought, never mind. The original question of this thread was answered and (apparently) agreed upon: no, actor stance does not require immersion. I trust that GBSteve is OK with this, and if that issue requires any more discussion, I'm happy to continue.

To all, even the parts addressed to specific people,

Fang, don't bare your ... um, fangs (hey wait a minute) at me. No need.

Many of your points are well taken and you are correct to call me on, for instance, taking your method-acting point personally. I am chastened.

I also freely admit that the terminology is in flux (how many stances, etc). What is NOT in flux, however, is what Stance is ABOUT. If the discussion is to progress - and yes, I take responsibility for NOT helping it do so, in my frustration - then that "what Stance is about" can't be permitted to twist out of view.

As to the issue at hand, however, I stand firm. (1) We have dealt with GBSteve's inquiry. (2) The second issue (which I don't think I side-stepped, but rather raised and I think resolved) is way too harsh on all of us and I for one am ready to take a chill-pill.

Mike has nailed the issue of that touchiness, though - I am talking about what people do, and other people REALLY want to talk about motivation. I respond as follows: go ahead. However, I think using Stance terminology to do it will be destructive to the emerging theory. Also, I have to bow out of that conversation. Motivations, and discussing them, gives me hives unless a HUGE amount of groundwork has been laid.

Best,
Ron

Hey - can we not refer to this "imaginative investment" as Suspension Of Disbelief"?

Heres a question that might be useful for the stances:
"wheres the camera?" I notice a difference in behaviour between Immersive and Actor stances might be analogous to looking at the character (3rd person shot) or though the characters eyes (1st person shot). I am reminded of a couple of entries in a "You Know You Are A Roleplayer" list which went:
- you flip between referring to yourself in the 1st and 3rd person
- ... and your friends all know what you mean.

I also feel that discussions of The Method in acting are somewhat missing the point - an actual actor using the method is probably not in Immersive stance, they are in the Actor stance OF ROLEPLAYING. For the actor, the fact that they are adopting RP as opposed straight portrayal is probably quite significant, as people sometimes say of "the greats" that "they don't act". No, in fact they RP.

My thought-forms for the stances are as follows:

The Actor is portraying their character to the other participants. They are conscious of their character as a designed artifact, in the third person. Actors often narrate "how it looks" to others. To some extent, they are able to look AT their character and describe what they see.

The Audience is observing and appreciating the action. This can even be a character mode of behaviour as much a player mode. The Audience also allows the player to receive out of character information in an appropriate box. Devices such as cutaways are really prompts for players to adopt Audience stance temporarily, although they often do it spontaneously (esp. in circumstances where "the party" is separated.) In contrast with Ron, I do see this as a recognisable player stance.

The Author is also, like the Audience, able to process SOD-challenging information by handling it via black boxes - in this case the player is consciously aware of the game as an artifact, and is thus able to intervene in it directly. SOD has been suspended (but not broken) and placed in an appropriate box for the duration.

Anyway, I post this as a request for clarifiaction to an extent. I see an overlap with what I am describing as Author ands what Ron is describing as Director. I would say to GB Steve that I wholly agree with his initial point, that Actor and Immersive are not identical, because of the relationship to SOD-challenging data. I wonder, if in the grand scheme of things, it might not actually be a sub-category of Author rather than Actor, but anyway I certainly observe it as an actually-existing play style.

0.02

Contracycle wrote:
Hey - can we not refer to this "imaginative investment" as Suspension Of Disbelief"?

I also feel that discussions of The Method in acting are somewhat missing the point - an actual actor using the method is probably not in Immersive stance, they are in the Actor stance OF ROLEPLAYING. For the actor, the fact that they are adopting RP as opposed straight portrayal is probably quite significant, as people sometimes say of "the greats" that "they don't act". No, in fact they RP.

Anyway, I post this as a request for clarification to an extent. I see an overlap with what I am describing as Author and what Ron is describing as Director.

Anyway, I post this as a request for clarification to an extent. I see an overlap with what I am describing as Author and what Ron is describing as Director.