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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7466858" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>What does <em>it</em> refer to? I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about <em>stances</em>, which is a notion that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] brought into the thread, that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] followed up on, and that absolutely is about establishing fiction. From the Ron Edwards essay that Emerikol's blog has copied and pasted:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">*In <strong>Actor</strong> stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* In <strong>Author</strong> 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 <strong>Pawn</strong> stance.)</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* In <strong>Director</strong> 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.</p><p></p><p>Each of these is about <em>what a player of the game determines</em> - ie some element of the fiction that is in some way connected to a character, such as <em>a character's decision and actions</em> or <em>some aspect of the environment relative to a character in some fashion</em> and relates that determination to <em> the character's knowledge, perception and ability to influence events</em>.</p><p></p><p>The analysis of action within stance is not confined to non-GM players. When a GM decides something about what a NPC does, or decides something related to a NPC, we can equally discuss what stance the GM was occupying in making that decision.</p><p></p><p>So a GM who muses "What would Nerof Gasgal do in relation to that? Well, it poses a threat to Greyhawk, and protecting the safety of Greyhawk is his highest priority, so he would oppose it, even though doing so might hurt the Thieves' Guild" is determining how Nerof Gasgal thinks and acts <em>in actor stance</em>, even though all the reasoning happens in third person.</p><p></p><p>If you want to coin some other terminology to describe some feature of non-GM player RPGing that is important to you, go ahead! But <em>stance</em> is an already-established notion that is talking about the things I called out.</p><p></p><p>As best I can tell, I know as much about method acting as anyone else posting in this thread. Method acting is a device for inhabiting a character who is already scripted, and thereby delivering a performance of that character. It's not an orientation towards "determining a character's decisions and actions", which is what <em>actor stance</em> is.</p><p></p><p>Here are a couple of passages from the Google entry on "method acting":</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">actors make use of experiences from their own lives to bring them closer to the experience of their characters. This technique, which Stanislavski came to call emotion memory (Strasberg tends to use the alternative formulation, "affective memory"), involves the recall of sensations involved in experiences that made a significant emotional impact on the actor. Without faking or forcing, actors allow those sensations to stimulate a response and try not to inhibit themselves. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[Adler's] version of the method is based on the idea that actors should stimulate emotional experience by imagining the scene's "given circumstances", rather than recalling experiences from their own lives. Adler's approach also seeks to stimulate the actor's imagination through the use of "as ifs", which substitute more personally affecting imagined situations for the circumstances experienced by the character. Adler argued that "drawing on personal experience alone was too limited.</p><p></p><p>The "method" is about using various techniques - memory, imagination, etc - to generate an authentic emotional expression. It has nothing to do with deciding what action the character takes - it presuppose that the character is already scripted (hence the actor's quest to identify a "motivation" for that scripted action).</p><p></p><p>I don't know a great deal about improv, but my understanding is that riffing off what your collaborators give you is an important part of it. Correlating that to RPG stances would map onto <em>Author Stance</em> - ie the actor decides that (in character) s/he will do XYZ because that riffs well of what someone else just did - and then (whether using "the method" or some other device) establishes an (in character) motivation and rationale for doing XYZ.</p><p></p><p>Again, this is nonsense.</p><p></p><p>Deciding that my enraged character will reach to the ground to pick up a rock to throw isn't <em>moving me away from my character</em> - there are a whole range of circumstances in which that might be the most authentic thing I can declare for my character - but it involves director stance, because of the rock.</p><p></p><p>And author stance doesn't move one away from character either - as the improv example I just gave illustrates.</p><p></p><p>It may be true <em>for you</em> that you can't think about or inhabit a character while also thinking about the environment that character inhabits (although to me that seems rather odd) or thinking about how your portrayal of the character fits with other things going on at the table or on the stage (although to me that would seem like an impediment to doing good improv). But those would be biographical facts about you. I've got no reason at all to think they generalise to other RPGers.</p><p></p><p>It's <em>director stance</em> because the action declaration purport to establish an element of the environment that is "entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events", namely, the existence of contraband dealers in this urban locality.</p><p></p><p>Attempting to establish that element of the fiction in first or in third person doesn't change that fundamental fact about it.</p><p></p><p>OK, that's a biographical fact about you.</p><p></p><p>But I'm not speculating about what you would do. I am positing that the number of times, across the history of D&D play, when the GM has told the players "You arrive in a new town" and the players respond "OK, we look for the local <tavern, contraband dealers, fighter's guildhall, docks, temple, druid's grove, whatever else?" is well into the millions. And that was all director stance.</p><p></p><p>It's almost impossible to play an RPG in anything like a conventional fashion without the non-GM players from time-to-time entering director stance, because players think of things they want their PCs to do and engage with that haven't yet been established by GM narration <em>literally all the time</em>. You could try and play a game in which every single time the players waited on GM narration, or instead of saying "We head to the local tavern" asked "Is there a local tavern? If so, we head to it" - but I don't think that's realistic or practical, and I certainly don't see what the extra verbiage adds to the game. If, in fact, there is no local tavern, then when the players say "We head to the local tavern" the GM will quickly set them straight.</p><p></p><p>This is just wrong, and frankly shows you don't know what is meant by <em>stance</em>.</p><p></p><p>Deciding that my PC does <em> this</em> rather than <em>that</em> because I don't want to violate my LG alignment is an instance of author stance. It's not doing something to the character.</p><p></p><p>Deciding that my PC, having arrived at a new town, heads to the local tavern is an instance of director stance. It's not doing something to the character. </p><p></p><p>Your aesthetic preferences are what they are. I'm not trying to gainsay them. But the notion of <em>stance</em> doesn't validate them.</p><p></p><p>I don't know what this means. Are you coining some new notion of "stance" which is different from the one that Emerikol, Aldarc and I all referred to?</p><p></p><p>What does that even mean? "As I ride along the river bank I keep my eyes peeled for signs that any fellow members of my order live here or have passed this way." That involves a "roleplaying stance" (actor stance, on the face of it) and is an action declaration (Circles) - not all Circles checks involve director stance, although there are GM-side subtleties which I won't bother going into it which could mean that the apparent actor stance is, in fact, director stance.</p><p></p><p>I was referring to the play of a particular system - Burning Wheel. Changing a Belief is author stance - it is a decision about the character's commitment or orientation or aspiration that is made having regard to real-world considerations (eg <em>how do I want the arc of my character to unfold</em>? <em>what do I think will best engage whatever it is that is up the GM's sleeve</em>? <em>what would be fun to do with this PC</em>?).</p><p></p><p>Again, this depends on system. If the action is <em>I pick up a rock from the ground</em> or <em>I head to the local tavern in this new town</em> then the action declaration, implicating as it does <em>the environment separate from the character's ability to influence it</em>, takes place partly in director stance.</p><p></p><p>Whether mechanics are resorted to depends entirely on context and system, and has nothing to do with discussions of stance.</p><p></p><p>You don't just get to change my stipulated example and therefore conclude that it never happens. I was describing a situation in which <em>the player decides that his/her PC loans the item to another PC <u>because</u> the player thinks this will help the mission</em>. That is author stance - making a decision about a character's action based on real world concerns (ie wanting to do well in the mission). The fact that the player then imputes such a desire to the character - ie engages in the "retroactive step" - doesn't stop it being author stance. It confirms it as author stance rather than pawn stance.</p><p></p><p><strong>TL;DR</strong>: the notion of <em>stance</em> doesn't bear on your RPGing preferences in the way you seem to think it does.</p><p></p><p>***************************************************</p><p></p><p>I think it's impractical and I doubt that many tables play that way.</p><p></p><p>For instance, every time someone makes a decision about his/her action declaration for his/her PC because <em>it would be fun</em>, or because <em>she is worried about where his/her PC will be on the GM's alignment graph</em>, or because <em>the session is going to finish in 5 minutes</em>, or because <em>everyone else at the table is sick of the banter between the elf PC and the dwarf PC</em>, or . . . . then we have <em>author stance</em> roleplaying. And I frankly doubt that there are many tables where this sort of decision making by players never happens.</p><p></p><p>That incorporates actor stance, author stance and director stance.</p><p></p><p>All the examples I just gave are <em>actions the character could initiate</em> and can be <em>based on information the character knows</em> - that is the retroactive justification part of <em>author stance</em>.</p><p></p><p>There are <em>director stance</em> examples that also fit that bill, such as the ones I have discussed with Lanefan.</p><p></p><p>But if the GM hasn't yet decided whether or not there is a thieves' quarter, then this is just like example I discussed with Lanefan. Maybe the GM vetoes it. But if s/he goes along with it - and some GMs will - we have director stance.</p><p></p><p>This is why I think that an all actor stance game is impractical. Because unless the gameworld is an <em>incredibly</em> sparse environment then the players will be establishing all sorts of elements of the environment (however trivial these might seem) which are outside the influence of their PCs - <em>director stance</em>!</p><p></p><p>And to make another, related, point: it's just an error to equate <em>stance</em> with <em>mechanics</em>. Games that have no metagame mechanics (eg RQ) can still have action declarations that involve director stance: eg the player declares, in character, "I pick up a rock and throw it at him!" in circumstances where it has not yet been established that the PC has a rock ready to hand on the ground. In RQ, <em>because of the lack of metagame mechanics</em>, the GM has full veto rights over that action declaration, because the GM has ultimate authority over whether or not there are rocks on the ground near the PC. But if the GM lets the action declaration go - and in my experience many GMs would, far more than would go along with the thieves' quarter - then the player <em>determined an aspect of environment relative to the character over which the character has no influence</em>, namely, the presence of a rock ready-to-hand. Hence <em>director stance</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7466858, member: 42582"] What does [I]it[/I] refer to? I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about [I]stances[/I], which is a notion that [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] brought into the thread, that [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] followed up on, and that absolutely is about establishing fiction. From the Ron Edwards essay that Emerikol's blog has copied and pasted: [indent]*In [B]Actor[/B] stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. * In [B]Author[/B] 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 [B]Pawn[/B] stance.) * In [B]Director[/B] 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.[/indent] Each of these is about [I]what a player of the game determines[/I] - ie some element of the fiction that is in some way connected to a character, such as [I]a character's decision and actions[/I] or [I]some aspect of the environment relative to a character in some fashion[/I] and relates that determination to [I] the character's knowledge, perception and ability to influence events[/I]. The analysis of action within stance is not confined to non-GM players. When a GM decides something about what a NPC does, or decides something related to a NPC, we can equally discuss what stance the GM was occupying in making that decision. So a GM who muses "What would Nerof Gasgal do in relation to that? Well, it poses a threat to Greyhawk, and protecting the safety of Greyhawk is his highest priority, so he would oppose it, even though doing so might hurt the Thieves' Guild" is determining how Nerof Gasgal thinks and acts [I]in actor stance[/I], even though all the reasoning happens in third person. If you want to coin some other terminology to describe some feature of non-GM player RPGing that is important to you, go ahead! But [I]stance[/I] is an already-established notion that is talking about the things I called out. As best I can tell, I know as much about method acting as anyone else posting in this thread. Method acting is a device for inhabiting a character who is already scripted, and thereby delivering a performance of that character. It's not an orientation towards "determining a character's decisions and actions", which is what [I]actor stance[/I] is. Here are a couple of passages from the Google entry on "method acting": [indent]actors make use of experiences from their own lives to bring them closer to the experience of their characters. This technique, which Stanislavski came to call emotion memory (Strasberg tends to use the alternative formulation, "affective memory"), involves the recall of sensations involved in experiences that made a significant emotional impact on the actor. Without faking or forcing, actors allow those sensations to stimulate a response and try not to inhibit themselves. . . . [Adler's] version of the method is based on the idea that actors should stimulate emotional experience by imagining the scene's "given circumstances", rather than recalling experiences from their own lives. Adler's approach also seeks to stimulate the actor's imagination through the use of "as ifs", which substitute more personally affecting imagined situations for the circumstances experienced by the character. Adler argued that "drawing on personal experience alone was too limited.[/indent] The "method" is about using various techniques - memory, imagination, etc - to generate an authentic emotional expression. It has nothing to do with deciding what action the character takes - it presuppose that the character is already scripted (hence the actor's quest to identify a "motivation" for that scripted action). I don't know a great deal about improv, but my understanding is that riffing off what your collaborators give you is an important part of it. Correlating that to RPG stances would map onto [I]Author Stance[/I] - ie the actor decides that (in character) s/he will do XYZ because that riffs well of what someone else just did - and then (whether using "the method" or some other device) establishes an (in character) motivation and rationale for doing XYZ. Again, this is nonsense. Deciding that my enraged character will reach to the ground to pick up a rock to throw isn't [I]moving me away from my character[/I] - there are a whole range of circumstances in which that might be the most authentic thing I can declare for my character - but it involves director stance, because of the rock. And author stance doesn't move one away from character either - as the improv example I just gave illustrates. It may be true [I]for you[/I] that you can't think about or inhabit a character while also thinking about the environment that character inhabits (although to me that seems rather odd) or thinking about how your portrayal of the character fits with other things going on at the table or on the stage (although to me that would seem like an impediment to doing good improv). But those would be biographical facts about you. I've got no reason at all to think they generalise to other RPGers. It's [I]director stance[/I] because the action declaration purport to establish an element of the environment that is "entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events", namely, the existence of contraband dealers in this urban locality. Attempting to establish that element of the fiction in first or in third person doesn't change that fundamental fact about it. OK, that's a biographical fact about you. But I'm not speculating about what you would do. I am positing that the number of times, across the history of D&D play, when the GM has told the players "You arrive in a new town" and the players respond "OK, we look for the local <tavern, contraband dealers, fighter's guildhall, docks, temple, druid's grove, whatever else?" is well into the millions. And that was all director stance. It's almost impossible to play an RPG in anything like a conventional fashion without the non-GM players from time-to-time entering director stance, because players think of things they want their PCs to do and engage with that haven't yet been established by GM narration [I]literally all the time[/I]. You could try and play a game in which every single time the players waited on GM narration, or instead of saying "We head to the local tavern" asked "Is there a local tavern? If so, we head to it" - but I don't think that's realistic or practical, and I certainly don't see what the extra verbiage adds to the game. If, in fact, there is no local tavern, then when the players say "We head to the local tavern" the GM will quickly set them straight. This is just wrong, and frankly shows you don't know what is meant by [I]stance[/i]. Deciding that my PC does [I] this[/I] rather than [I]that[/I] because I don't want to violate my LG alignment is an instance of author stance. It's not doing something to the character. Deciding that my PC, having arrived at a new town, heads to the local tavern is an instance of director stance. It's not doing something to the character. Your aesthetic preferences are what they are. I'm not trying to gainsay them. But the notion of [I]stance[/I] doesn't validate them. I don't know what this means. Are you coining some new notion of "stance" which is different from the one that Emerikol, Aldarc and I all referred to? What does that even mean? "As I ride along the river bank I keep my eyes peeled for signs that any fellow members of my order live here or have passed this way." That involves a "roleplaying stance" (actor stance, on the face of it) and is an action declaration (Circles) - not all Circles checks involve director stance, although there are GM-side subtleties which I won't bother going into it which could mean that the apparent actor stance is, in fact, director stance. I was referring to the play of a particular system - Burning Wheel. Changing a Belief is author stance - it is a decision about the character's commitment or orientation or aspiration that is made having regard to real-world considerations (eg [I]how do I want the arc of my character to unfold[/I]? [I]what do I think will best engage whatever it is that is up the GM's sleeve[/I]? [I]what would be fun to do with this PC[/I]?). Again, this depends on system. If the action is [I]I pick up a rock from the ground[/I] or [I]I head to the local tavern in this new town[/I] then the action declaration, implicating as it does [I]the environment separate from the character's ability to influence it[/I], takes place partly in director stance. Whether mechanics are resorted to depends entirely on context and system, and has nothing to do with discussions of stance. You don't just get to change my stipulated example and therefore conclude that it never happens. I was describing a situation in which [I]the player decides that his/her PC loans the item to another PC [U]because[/U] the player thinks this will help the mission[/i]. That is author stance - making a decision about a character's action based on real world concerns (ie wanting to do well in the mission). The fact that the player then imputes such a desire to the character - ie engages in the "retroactive step" - doesn't stop it being author stance. It confirms it as author stance rather than pawn stance. [B]TL;DR[/B]: the notion of [I]stance[/I] doesn't bear on your RPGing preferences in the way you seem to think it does. *************************************************** I think it's impractical and I doubt that many tables play that way. For instance, every time someone makes a decision about his/her action declaration for his/her PC because [I]it would be fun[/I], or because [I]she is worried about where his/her PC will be on the GM's alignment graph[/I], or because [I]the session is going to finish in 5 minutes[/I], or because [I]everyone else at the table is sick of the banter between the elf PC and the dwarf PC[/I], or . . . . then we have [I]author stance[/I] roleplaying. And I frankly doubt that there are many tables where this sort of decision making by players never happens. That incorporates actor stance, author stance and director stance. All the examples I just gave are [I]actions the character could initiate[/I] and can be [I]based on information the character knows[/I] - that is the retroactive justification part of [I]author stance[/I]. There are [I]director stance[/I] examples that also fit that bill, such as the ones I have discussed with Lanefan. But if the GM hasn't yet decided whether or not there is a thieves' quarter, then this is just like example I discussed with Lanefan. Maybe the GM vetoes it. But if s/he goes along with it - and some GMs will - we have director stance. This is why I think that an all actor stance game is impractical. Because unless the gameworld is an [I]incredibly[/I] sparse environment then the players will be establishing all sorts of elements of the environment (however trivial these might seem) which are outside the influence of their PCs - [I]director stance[/I]! And to make another, related, point: it's just an error to equate [I]stance[/I] with [I]mechanics[/I]. Games that have no metagame mechanics (eg RQ) can still have action declarations that involve director stance: eg the player declares, in character, "I pick up a rock and throw it at him!" in circumstances where it has not yet been established that the PC has a rock ready to hand on the ground. In RQ, [I]because of the lack of metagame mechanics[/I], the GM has full veto rights over that action declaration, because the GM has ultimate authority over whether or not there are rocks on the ground near the PC. But if the GM lets the action declaration go - and in my experience many GMs would, far more than would go along with the thieves' quarter - then the player [I]determined an aspect of environment relative to the character over which the character has no influence[/I], namely, the presence of a rock ready-to-hand. Hence [I]director stance[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
Top