Yes, I've pointed to this weirdness upthread, that the insistence on feigning ignorance precludes the experienced player from declaring actions that are open to the new player. Just another weirdness about it.
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
For me, this pretty much cuts to the heart of it. Every action declaration (not just resolution, but declaration) appears to be gated by the GM, who regulates what motives and beliefs the players are allowed to draw upon in making those action declarations.
But you've said they need your permission to have their PCs recall something. I quoted you fewer than half-a-dozen posts upthread saying that very thing.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
You're right about the DM not having to adjudicate things recalled that involve what the PC has encountered during game play. It's the stuff that isn't from game play that's at issue here. So yes, if the players have encountered a broker and one of them remembers, he can freely say, "Remember that broker we met - let's track her down." However, if they haven't encountered a broker during game play, whether or not any PC knows of one is in doubt, so an attempt to recall a broker would involve an Int check to find out. The DM has authority to adjudicate those sorts of attempts at recall.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
It might appear that way to someone who doesn't understand the playstyle, but it is not that way in my game.
No. I said when the attempt involves uncertainty about whether or not the PC knows something, the DM has the authority to adjudicate it and call for a roll. He can say yes of course, and if there is good reason he will rarely say no. The vast majority of the time the die roll determines whether or not the PCs recall something, not the DM.
Below is what I said about this.
"The into section of 5e. The players decribe to the DM what they want their characters to do. You want your character to remember what a troll's weakness is. The DM narrates the results after deciding yes, no or uncertain which requires a roll.
Read the exchange where the player experienced at the game doesn't just know what a gargoyle is. He "has a feeling" that the gargoyles may not be statues, but still has to look at them and make a roll to see if they are gargoyles or not. The DM ultimately has him make an intelligence(investigation) check."
I also said,
"Edit:By the way, the metagaming portion specifically says to discourage metagame THINKING, so yes the rules state that the DM has authority of what the PC thinks and direct the DM to use that authority with metagaming."
The above shows that the game gives the DM at least some authority over what the PC thinks, since it directs the DM to discourage metagame thinking. I never said that the DM authority over ALL PC thoughts.
Sadras
Legend
@pemerton, @hawkeyefan and @Aldarc:
@Maxperson's game (and he can correct me where I'm wrong) advocates for actor stance, not necessarily for first person dialogue but for the character behaviour/thought process. So yes at times, probably many, the player will know more than the character about the in-game fiction, as the player dives into the role of the character.
Added to the above, at Maxperson's table the players may not create backstory fiction on the fly as that could be seen to circumvent much of the player knowledge-character knowledge divide and allows one short cuts/maybe even considered as a cheat in the roleplay (actor stance).
From Maxperson's PoV, he is not gating anything or playing a degenerate form of MMI. He, as referee, is ensuring that everyone follows the roleplay in actor stance. Hence metagaming is an abomination in his eyes as is the circumventing of any kind of actor stance by players inputting backstory fiction or any in-game fiction which could viewed as a cheat.
You and others (the collective you) may of course consider the above weird, a pc disconnect, MMI, DM-gating - but I think your efforts here are pointless in trying to convince Maxperson to agree with your definitions of his game as actor stance is his pure way of D&D and therefore cannot be weird, disconnected, or deemed some type of pejorative since from his PoV he is following the rules and adjudicating fairly according to his table.
In a rather crude sense (maybe skirting close against board rules), and meaning no disrespect to Maxperson or yourselves via this example, you guys sound like a bunch of atheists trying to convince a religious people that the way they live their life is weird, they have a disconnect from reality, have an MMI relationship with their pastor/deity and their lifestyle equates to a whole slew of pejoratives. And then you question why they don't want to see it your way and accept your definitions.
Meanwhile according to them they're following the good book and living life correctly.
Last edited:
The only definition of actor stance that I'm familiar with is Ron Edwards's:
In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.
This is a particular mode of or orientation towards action declaration. It says nothing about who gets to decice what knowledge and perception the character would have.
Here are the other "stances" that Edwards identifies:
In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)
In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.
In Director stance, a person determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character's actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.
When the RuneQuest books say that players should have their PCs cooperate because that is necessary for the game to be fun, that's an example of advocating author stance - that is, making decisions for one's character based on real-world (or, if you prefer, metagame) priorities (in this case, having fun playing the game). I would be absolutely gobsmacked if there is not quite a bit of this in [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s game. Even [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] on these boards, who is more purist than Maxperson about the issue of "artificial" cooperation between PCs, has told anecdotes of doing stuff with one's PC because it's fun/exciting in the real world. Which is to say that even [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] plays in author stance from time-to-time.
Every time a player has his/her PC pick up on an "adventure hook" because it seems like it would be more fun in play than hanging out at the thermal baths, we have author stance.
It seems likely to me that players in Maxperson's game adopt director stance only during character creation - for instance, they are not allowed to introduce new backstory elements during the course of play. But deciding that my PC knows about trolls isn't an example of Director Stance. Deciding that s/he knows about them because Old Uncle Elmo told him/her is Director Stance only if the existence of Uncle Elmo and his tale telling hasn't yet been established as part of the fiction.
Deciding that my PC wants to use fire to attack these trolls because I want to get the encounter over and done with would be an example of author stance. If I don't offer some story to explain why my PC wants to use fire, then it's pawn wtance.
If I don't know very much about what my PC does or would know - which is very common in D&D play (eg consider the starting set up for most classic modules) - then most action will be pawn stance for the simple reason that my PC has no knowledge, perceptions and motivations outside mine as a player knowing what the game expects. Conversely, to adopt actor stance in playing my PC I need a reasonably rich sense of what my PC knows and wants. Normally that would be established before play (if it's established by the player during play then we're back into author stance). No version of D&D I'm familiar with says that this is the sole prerogative of the GM: classic D&D (OD&D, B/X, Gygax's AD&D) are silent on this matter, while 4e clearly says that the player establishes background and can establish quests for his/her PC. As I already posted, perhaps the 2nd ed AD&D DMG says that this is the sole prerogative of the GM - that's not a book I've ever read.
He, as referee, is deciding what the PCs do or don't know. That's not holding players to actor stance (assuming you're using that phrase in the only way I'm aware of it ever having been defined). That's deciding what it is that the PC knows, and treating that as the GM's exclusive prerogative.
Whether or not it's "a degenerate form of MMI" isn't something for me to judge - presumably it's flourishing at Maxperson's table. But it's clearly a very strong form of GM gating.
EDIT:
But, as per the quote that follows, you appear to take the view that there is such uncertainty in respect of anything that has not actually been revealed in play.
If a player is not entitled to impute any knowledge to his/her PC other than what has actually been encountered in play, moving beyond pawn stance will be very difficult.
(Which is certainly a very traditional way to play D&D: modules like ToH, Keep on the Borderlands, the Pharoah series, Isle of Dread, all the ones being republished in Yawning Portal and by Goodman Games, etc assume pawn stance as the default: that is, that players will make certain choices because that's how the game works, and the question of why the PC would make that choice isn't expected to be raised, let alone answered.)
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I want the player to play and be their PCs, acting as their characters would, even if that means PCs coming into coming into conflict with one another or going off to do their own thing. The PCs cooperate when they should in character, and don't when they shouldn't. And guess what! The players still have fun, so PC cooperation is not necessary for fun.
And yet my players will often have their PCs go to the baths, leaving the hook for later, because they just got into town after a rough time out and a bath sounds good.
That said, games are a mix of the various styles. Gamist, narrativist, simulationist, actor, author, etc. They just vary in the percentages of each style in the mix, so yes, there will be a bit of author in the game as well, just not as much as you seem to be making it out to be here.
Do you even read my posts? I've said multiple times that they can create backstory during play, but that back story has to relate or make sense with prior backstory created at character creation. And it can't happen in the moment when they encounter something in order to create what they need right then.
Sure it is. You've created a backstory element that wasn't in existence prior to that moment. Uncle Elmo existed, but the tale did not.
It's sufficient to have a reasonably rich sense of what the PC might know. Elmo MIGHT have told you about trolls and we will find that out with a roll.
I'm not, or more accurately, I rarely am. Typically I am deciding that such knowledge is uncertain and requires a roll. Requiring a roll is not me deciding what the PC does or does not know. The die is doing that.
Except that as all my corrections here have shown, you still don't understand or perhaps want to understand, what it is that I do, despite me telling it to you over and over and over.
Again, no. While much will be uncertain, sometimes there is certainty. Game play, backgrounds, etc. will determine when those times are. As I have said, also multiple times here, if the PC has lived near the troll moors for his life up until he became an adventurer, I will not require a roll to know about trolls. The yes will be automatic, even though it has not yet been revealed in play.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
It's totally a manufactured problem, a self-inflicted wound, that comes from setting a requirement that a character needs to know something to take action. I've already shown a couple of examples where these are decoupled: You don't need to know the troll is weak to fire to lob a fire bolt at it. You don't need to know that gargoyles are weak to adamantine to hit a statue with an adamantine blade. Still, you assert that these actions are only valid in certain circumstances, a requirement which is in no way supported or suggested by the rules of the game, and take it a step further and say that trying to get around this tacked-on requirement is somehow cheating.
Meanwhile, this thing you've added just creates a new game of trying to meet those requirements which sets the stage for more metagame thinking, not less. It's an approach that basically trades one form of "metagaming" for another (and sometimes you get two for the price of one).
Contrast this with how I handle "metagaming:" I don't care how you make decisions for your character - that's your business, not mine or anyone else's. But, be advised that I realize that fire-weak trolls have been around for nearly half a century and that, if I want knowledge of the troll's strength and weaknesses to be an important part of the challenge, I'm going to change those weaknesses to something other than fire and acid. Or stick normal trolls in a swamp filled with explosive swamp gas. And I'll telegraph that change somehow when describing the environment. Now your knowledge as a player and the knowledge of the character have more parity. It's risky to lob that fire without first trying to suss out the troll's weaknesses. You don't have to pretend you don't know something because you actually don't (at least, not with certainty).
The problem, such as it is, is solved right there on the DM's side of the equation without playing the metagame of who knows what so they can take the action they want to take.
And guess what else - the RuneQuest rules that I quoted upthread, which you asserted expressed the same view as you about "metagaming", assert the opposite from you.
Which simply reinforces my contention that your idiosyncratic preferences as to what "metagaming" is permitted and what is not do not tell us anything about the nature of RPGing per se as an activity.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I didn't manufacture the problem. You manufactured a solution that works for you.
I didn't add it. It's just common sense that the PC isn't going to know everything the player knows and be able to act on that knowledge, even with weak justifications that people add in, like uncles.
I get that this works for you, but it doesn't work for us. This is not a problem we manufactured. Rather, it's one that already exists when you view the game from our perspective and play in the manner that we do.
Similar Threads
