The Forge Archives

Take a look at this:

Quote from: STANCE CHART

Key to Chart:

(Terms in Parens) = essential, understood limits

[Terms in Brackets] = arbitrary limits that can be changed

player = every player is limited by themselves: their creativity and intelligence, the things they happen to think of, what kind of day they've had, their instincts, what they feel comfortable saying/doing in front of the group, their relationships with the other players, etc.  this is an unavoidable, understood limit.

contract = every game has a social contract that serves to support it, which can be as little as "be nice to each other" or as complicated as GURPS vehicle creation.  this includes rules, setting, tone, and any other external game contructs that serves to restrict the ways players act.  this is also an unavoidable part of roleplaying.  every game has a contract of some kind.

persona = this limitation comes into play whenever a player is limited by the personality of the character they have taken control of.  if the player won't do something because their character wouldn't do that, they are limited by that persona.  some stances have this limit, others don't.

ability = this limitation comes into play whenever a player is limited by the ability of the character they have taken control of.  if the player can't do something because their character can't do that, they are limited by the character's ability.  some stances have this limit, others don't.

Conclusion

There should be 4 stances.  The 3 stance model lacks a stance where you are restricted by persona but not ability, i.e. one where you can do everything your character would do (within the limits of player and contract).

I think "God Stance" has been overlooked because, as I said in the http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4195">"What's Wrong with Pawn Stance?" thread in RPG Theory, there has historically be a move to divorce Director Stance from avatarism, having a disembodied GM exercising Directoral powers.  Nobody's really done much with "Director Stance + persona" before, outside of the semi-IC GMs of Agone and the like.

Additionally, I think the "retconning character motives" part of Author Stance is misleading, since that is not really a part of this definition at all.  Making the distiction between "normal" Author Stance and "Pawn Stance" is bull, according to this model.  "Pawn Stance" should be the default version of Author Stance.  Retconning character motives is fluff to hide the fact that the PC is an avatar.

Finally, it's important to note that none of the Stances have anything to do with the player having a physical character within the story.  You could easily have a persona and abilities and be disembodied, just like you could have total control and still be represented by a character that takes part in the action.

Obviously, this is just one way of justifying the Stances, but I think it's one that provides interesting results.  I look forward to seeing what others think.

Later.
Jonathan

P.S.  I had the term "God Stance" in mind before Matt Snyder mentioned it on http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4195">this thread, but he gets credit for reinforcing my decision to suggest it.  Thanks Matt.

oops!

I'm Maryanne Snyder, no relation to Matt.

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

Quote from: MK Snyderoops!

I'm Maryanne Snyder, no relation to Matt.

oops is right.  My apologies Maryanne.

This is what happens when you post after midnight...

Later.
Jonathan

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):

Quote from: Mike HolmesAudience - 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).

God - creating or motivating things other than characters, IC.

If Director Stance is based on player desires, then God Stance is just the same thing based on the desires of a particular character (which often times will be the same).  I just think that if the Actor/Author distiction is necessary, then the Director/God one probably is too.

Quote from: FANG's EXAMPLEDirector 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."

Quote from: MY EXAMPLEGod 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."

For the example, I chose a military commander instead of an actual diety, just to make a point about the multiple purposes of God Stance.

I'm not trying to convince you, necessarily, but trying to show more clearly what I'm getting at.  Is there a better way to describe it aside from a completely new stance?

Later.
Jonathan

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."[/list:u]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:

Quote from: EXAMPLEDirector 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."

Thoughts?

Later.
Jonathan

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

Quote from: fleetingGlowOk, 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?

Sort of.  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).

Quote from: KesterInteresting outline, looks almost like a attempt to identify personality types and apply them to attitudes of in-game role-play.

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 interpretated.  I'm just taking Ron's concepts and fiddling with them, trying to see what I can come up with.

Thanks for the links anyway, though.  They look like they might be helpful in other ways.

Later.
Jonathan

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.

Quote from: fleetingGlowNow 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.

I think my example is a little faulty.  Replace the character, "Angel of Radiance" with "mcguffin."  Now there is no other character to worry about.

Director (Actor) -- uses the mcguffin in a way consistant with the mcguffin's known properties, i.e. it's "character" or identity

"It becomes autumn.  The trees begin to loose their leaves."

Director (Author) -- uses the mcguffin in a way consistant with player desires, but retconns it to be a property of the mcguffin

"It becomes autumn.  The trees begin to cry tears of blood.  It seems at great evil has befallen the land and you can see it everywhere you look."

Director (Pawn) -- uses the mcguffin in a way directly consistant with player desires

"It becomes autumn.  The trees begin to cry tears of blood.  My vampire character goes up and licks the trees' tears."

Does that work better?

Later.
Jonathan

Hey Jonathan,

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

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonIt 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"[/list:u]Thoughts?

Um...yeah.

What are you talking about?  I don't mean to sound aggressive, but you're just not making any kind of sense to me.  Can you please explain?

Let me illustrate my confusion.

Director stance doesn't make any specific claims about In-Character or Out-of-Character motivations because they're irrelevant.  No matter where the motivation comes from, the action comes from the player.  (Technically, Stances do not deal in motivations at all.)  "The General exercising control over the battle...outside limits of character" makes no sense whatsoever.  The general, a fictional character, is not aware of the game or anything "outside limits of character," because he doesn't exist!

Characters in a game cannot change events from an Out-of-Character perspective because they aren't real.  Only a player, a real person, can make any decisions or determine any actions, because it is in their imagination that these characters exist.  The general isn't real, he can't actually do anything at all; only his player, imagining him, can.  In the Scattershot Model, I call this TiC (Thinking in Context).  TiC is the frame of reference from the character's point of view.  (You'll have to indulge me, because I can only explain this confusion using terms outside of the mangled model.)

"Director Stance (Actor-style)" has nothing to do with Actor Stance; what it sounds like is using Director Stance to satisfy urges arising from TiC.  I'd call that indulgence and not bring "Actor" into at all.  "Director Stance (Author-style)" is nonsensical because the character cannot express anything, being fictitious; that a player uses 'character voice' to express Director Stance material, is no reason to conflate other terms (adding to the confusion) when they aren't present.  "Director Stance (Pawn-style)" is meaningless because (as far as I can tell) there is no difference between Author Stance and 'Pawn Stance;' Director Stance without TiC is normal.  Really, indulgent Director Stance is a funny side note, but I see no reason to completely crock the current model by adding another layer of redundant terminology.  (What's next, Pawn-Actor Stance?  Author-Director Stance?  Will we argue the difference between Actor-Director Stance and Director-Actor Stance?)

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonI'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).

I just can't see what your on about; can you help me understand?  Characters simply cannot act on a meta-game level (that'd be all of Director Stance and some of Author Stance), because they don't exist.  That means "Environment (Actor) = GOD" doesn't exist.¹

Really, all you're doing is reiterating the current model (leaving out one): [listed as "Sphere of Influence (Stance) = ACTUAL STANCE"]

[*]Character (Actor) = ACTOR
[*]Character (Author/Pawn) = AUTHOR/PAWN
[*][Environment (Actor) = GOD can't exist]
[*]Environment (Author/Pawn) = AUTHOR/PAWN
[*]Environment (Director) = DIRECTOR[/list:u]It is arguable that Director Stance used upon the character is simply Author Stance.  It is clear by the fictitious nature of characters that players cannot use Actor Stance to do anything with the environment that the character themselves cannot; to say otherwise renders the whole nomenclature meaningless (thus all Stances could do all things, why give them names?).

Quote from: Jonathan WaltonActually, 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.

I don't believe Ron's model is about, nor can be contrived to be about motivations (or even what voice is applied to make them happen).  If you want to avoid confusion, I'd suggest dropping the "Actor-Author-Director" terminology and start a whole new theory about motivations and voice.  One thing you must do, though, is expunge the idea that characters in a game are real, have real motivations, or can take any action in the absence of player motivation (which might be founded on the motive to emulate a character, but still not of the character).

Fang Langford

¹ Okay, I'll admit you could write a game where the characters know their characters in a game and all that, but it would still be the players making things happen (even if they do it 'in character').

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.