Maxperson, I'm going to restate some questions because you didn't answer them.
I assert that a game in which the GM has pre-eminent, overwhelming authority in ddtermining what PCs know is one that involves heavy GM-gating, not just of action resolution outcomes but action declaration (as has emerged in the fire vs troll discussion). Do you disagree?
Actor stance, as defined by Ron Edwards (and that's the only definition I'm aware of), consists in "a person determin[ing] a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have." My assertion is that this is possible only if the PC has relatively richly established knowledge, motivations, etc. Hence, in the absence of those things, what will result is pawn stance, that is, the player will "determine[] a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities". Because those real world priorities will be the only one's ready to hand (given the thinness of the PC's knowledge and motivations).
Do you disagree with this?
I think it's something I don't enjoy. I gather you do. But both those facts are irrelevant to my question, which I'll restate:Why do you think DM gating is always a bad thing?pemerton said:Are you denying that such an approach would be a very strong form of GM-gating?
I assert that a game in which the GM has pre-eminent, overwhelming authority in ddtermining what PCs know is one that involves heavy GM-gating, not just of action resolution outcomes but action declaration (as has emerged in the fire vs troll discussion). Do you disagree?
This is not an answer to my question, so I'll try it again:Probably because they aren't pawns. They are in actor stance.pemerton said:Do you disagree that thin PC background produces pawn stance? If so, what's the basis for your disagreement?
Actor stance, as defined by Ron Edwards (and that's the only definition I'm aware of), consists in "a person determin[ing] a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have." My assertion is that this is possible only if the PC has relatively richly established knowledge, motivations, etc. Hence, in the absence of those things, what will result is pawn stance, that is, the player will "determine[] a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities". Because those real world priorities will be the only one's ready to hand (given the thinness of the PC's knowledge and motivations).
Do you disagree with this?