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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7467676" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Seriously? I gave XP to your OP and replied to it.</p><p></p><p>Nonsense. Most classic D&D play is in either author or pawn stance - the player makes a decision for the PC because it will help beat the dungeon, and then there may be retroactive attribution of the relevant desire or motivation to the PC.</p><p></p><p>Actually read, or reread, pp 107-109 of Gygax's PHB. All the advice there, which is aimed at AD&D players c 1978, is about making choices that will help survive and beat the dungeon. There is absolutely nothing there about attributing a personality to the PC and then extrapolating actions and decisions from that personality (which is what actor stance involves).</p><p></p><p>Likwise with his comments about alignment, on p 35 of the PHB:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the reason a player is given for caring about PC alignment is not because that is what is involved in being true to the PC, but because breaking alignment can bring consequences from the referee who tracks it on the graph! That is pure author stance.</p><p></p><p>I don't know what "character stance" means.</p><p></p><p>But <em>director stance</em> means a player establishing an element of the gameworld that is outside the influence of his/her PC. A player who says (in character) "I pick up a rock" without asking the GM "Is there a rock?" is declaring an action in director stance. That's the whole point: there is no correlation between stance and mechanics. If there was - eg if "director stance" just meant "metagame mechanics" than the terminology would be redundant and wouldn't have been invented.</p><p></p><p>I already discussed this upthread.</p><p></p><p>If the GM vetoes, then the GM vetoes. But if the GM lets it pass, then the player declared an action in director stance.</p><p></p><p>Now maybe, in your game, that never happens in relation to taverns because you have every tavern in the gameworld specified ahead of time. But I would find that hard to believe for rocks.</p><p></p><p>Or if the PCs are on a wilderness expedition and a player declares "We catch a rabbit for our dinner." If the GM replies "OK, what's your hunting skill? 16, you say? OK, no worries, you catch a rabbit" - well, again, that player declared an action in director stance which brought it about that the fiction includes a rabbit being caught by the player.</p><p></p><p>I understand, in principle, your desire to avoid metagame mechanics, although I find your actual categorisation pretty weird (to me, as a long time RM player, hit points are a thousand times more metagame than second wind or action surge, which remind me quite a bit of RM adrenal moves). But your stuff about stance just implies that you don't actually get what Ron Edwards and others who coined the terminology of stance were talking about. It's not helping you explain your preference.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7467676, member: 42582"] Seriously? I gave XP to your OP and replied to it. Nonsense. Most classic D&D play is in either author or pawn stance - the player makes a decision for the PC because it will help beat the dungeon, and then there may be retroactive attribution of the relevant desire or motivation to the PC. Actually read, or reread, pp 107-109 of Gygax's PHB. All the advice there, which is aimed at AD&D players c 1978, is about making choices that will help survive and beat the dungeon. There is absolutely nothing there about attributing a personality to the PC and then extrapolating actions and decisions from that personality (which is what actor stance involves). Likwise with his comments about alignment, on p 35 of the PHB: [indent]It is probable that your campaign referee will keep a graph of the drift of your character on the alignment chart. This is affected by the actions (and desires) of your character during the course of each adventure, and will be reflected on the graph. You may find that these actions are such as to cause the declared alignment to be shifted towards, or actually to, some other.[/indent] In other words, the reason a player is given for caring about PC alignment is not because that is what is involved in being true to the PC, but because breaking alignment can bring consequences from the referee who tracks it on the graph! That is pure author stance. I don't know what "character stance" means. But [I]director stance[/I] means a player establishing an element of the gameworld that is outside the influence of his/her PC. A player who says (in character) "I pick up a rock" without asking the GM "Is there a rock?" is declaring an action in director stance. That's the whole point: there is no correlation between stance and mechanics. If there was - eg if "director stance" just meant "metagame mechanics" than the terminology would be redundant and wouldn't have been invented. I already discussed this upthread. If the GM vetoes, then the GM vetoes. But if the GM lets it pass, then the player declared an action in director stance. Now maybe, in your game, that never happens in relation to taverns because you have every tavern in the gameworld specified ahead of time. But I would find that hard to believe for rocks. Or if the PCs are on a wilderness expedition and a player declares "We catch a rabbit for our dinner." If the GM replies "OK, what's your hunting skill? 16, you say? OK, no worries, you catch a rabbit" - well, again, that player declared an action in director stance which brought it about that the fiction includes a rabbit being caught by the player. I understand, in principle, your desire to avoid metagame mechanics, although I find your actual categorisation pretty weird (to me, as a long time RM player, hit points are a thousand times more metagame than second wind or action surge, which remind me quite a bit of RM adrenal moves). But your stuff about stance just implies that you don't actually get what Ron Edwards and others who coined the terminology of stance were talking about. It's not helping you explain your preference. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A discussion of metagame concepts in game design
Top