Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7463906" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>Which you could also do from an Authorial or Directorial stance. These are not necessarily contradictory stances, as it were, when it comes to the expectation of "acting like a real person." But my point was that the social contract of expected play (e.g., "please go along with the GM's adventure that they put work into," or "my character is being too disruptive to the enjoyment of other players") may also guide how one performs the character. </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure why you are replying as if I was the person who supplied the blog post in question. </p><p></p><p>I'm not sure how this is a categorical contradiction. The bold seems to indicate that this stance <em>may include</em> these things but does <em>not necessarily</em> include them. <em>May</em> and <em>can</em> does not mean that it doesn't include, just that it's not necessarily included. As he writes, "It is also sometimes treated as the same thing as talking in-character or “Immersion.” But Actor Stance is SO much more." So here he does appear to make a distinction between simply talking in-character and Actor Stance. </p><p></p><p>A hamburger may and often does include a meat patty, but not all burgers are meat patties (e.g., veggie burgers). Keeping in mind here the obvious point that 'hamburger' does not etymologically designate a "burger composed of ham" but derives from the German city of "Hamburg."</p><p></p><p>I don't know. You seem to presume that this should be the goal of all roleplay. But I don't think that it should, particularly when it comes to different styles of play and levels of comfort that players have when approaching the game. I also dislike the implied presumption here of putting this stance on a pedastal or hierarchical supremacy for preferred play stance. I know many players who are not comfortable speaking in-character, and I would object to the idea that those who speak in-character roleplay better than those who don't.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7463906, member: 5142"] Which you could also do from an Authorial or Directorial stance. These are not necessarily contradictory stances, as it were, when it comes to the expectation of "acting like a real person." But my point was that the social contract of expected play (e.g., "please go along with the GM's adventure that they put work into," or "my character is being too disruptive to the enjoyment of other players") may also guide how one performs the character. I'm not sure why you are replying as if I was the person who supplied the blog post in question. I'm not sure how this is a categorical contradiction. The bold seems to indicate that this stance [I]may include[/I] these things but does [I]not necessarily[/I] include them. [I]May[/I] and [I]can[/I] does not mean that it doesn't include, just that it's not necessarily included. As he writes, "It is also sometimes treated as the same thing as talking in-character or “Immersion.” But Actor Stance is SO much more." So here he does appear to make a distinction between simply talking in-character and Actor Stance. A hamburger may and often does include a meat patty, but not all burgers are meat patties (e.g., veggie burgers). Keeping in mind here the obvious point that 'hamburger' does not etymologically designate a "burger composed of ham" but derives from the German city of "Hamburg." I don't know. You seem to presume that this should be the goal of all roleplay. But I don't think that it should, particularly when it comes to different styles of play and levels of comfort that players have when approaching the game. I also dislike the implied presumption here of putting this stance on a pedastal or hierarchical supremacy for preferred play stance. I know many players who are not comfortable speaking in-character, and I would object to the idea that those who speak in-character roleplay better than those who don't. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
Top