Narrative Space Options for non-spellcasters

[Mike Eagling]

Author Stance - I know the guard on patrol. He owes me a favor for clearing his debt with a dangerous bookmaker. I call in the favor and have him leave the door unlocked and unguarded (this is either mechanically available to him now when it wouldn't have been otherwise or it automatically happens).

Director Stance - I skulk up to the entryway. I hear the sounds of rambunctious revelry down the hall. The guards are in a drunken dice game and the sentry must have joined them. In his haste he forgot to lock the door!

It's possible, if not highly likely, that Author and Director Stance mean something different to what I think they mean. With that caveat in mind, why is the author stance example given above not actually director stance? The player appears to be "determining aspects of the environment" just as much as in the second example.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps I ought to read up on the Forge, but I hear just as much bad as good about it.

From Mike Mearls

The Forge is really the crucible for a lot of the real examination and exploration of the underlying structure of RPGs. Outside of the Forge, there are few other designers who think of games in a useful, interesting way.

<snip>

The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.

All the innovative games I know of - HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP - either inspired The Forge (eg the first two mentioned) or were to some extent inspired by it (eg the latter two mentioned). I don't know FATE as well as I should, but I'd be gobsmacked if it's designers weren't steeped in design ideas that have come out of the Forge.

 

[pemerton]

It's possible, if not highly likely, that Author and Director Stance mean something different to what I think they mean. With that caveat in mind, why is the author stance example given above not actually director stance? The player appears to be "determining aspects of the environment" just as much as in the second example.

I agree that it is an instance of director stance.

"Author stance", at least as I use it (from The Forge) refers to choosing actions for one's PC from the point of view of an author - ie "It would be pretty cool for my guy to do this awesome thing" - rather than from the point of view of the character him-/herself. In some playstyles, author stance then involves writing in a rationalising in-character motivation (eg "My guy loves to show off!"). When no such writing in takes place, we have that sub-category of author stance known as "pawn stance". (I think a lot of classic Gygaxian play was/is pawn stance.)

Although actor stance and author stance are logically/conceptually distinct, I think that in the reality of play they overlap hugely. Very few players are purely actor stance players, in part because most PCs aren't detailed enough in motivations and the like to answer all questions that come up as to how they would act, and in part because most people accomodate their play to fit within the external constraints and desires of the rest of the play group. And even purists who try to avoid being shaped by those external constraints often have a conception of what they want their PC to be (eg I'm playing a doomed anti-hero) which then shapes their choices from the "outside" in, rather than the "inside" out.

Director stance I think is also pretty common - I gave an example upthread, of deciding facts about your PC's birthplace and parentage - but I think is often seen as having to be sharply circumscribed. And I think this is what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example brings out. For instance, in his first example the resolution of the situation doesn't involve the player stipulating backstory beyond that which governs his/her PC and the guard with whom s/he is interacting. It's easy to imagine it being narrated as explanation for a successful Diplomacy, Bluff or perhaps even Thievery check - and although it does change the backstory in an interesting way, it has no further implications for resolution of the ongoing scenario.

Whereas the second example changes not only the backstory of the PC and the guard who is the present object of interaction, but also the disposition of all the other guards in the scenario. It goes well beyond action resolution into scene re-framing.

I think it is easy for D&D to incorporate examples like the first one (eg require successful skill checks, or the expenditure of Fate Points, or whatever else seems appropriate to ration them). I think it is a significantly bigger deal to incorporate examples like the second one, because you then have to build in a whole apparatus to mange these scene-reframing abilities so that players don't just reframe away all the challenges confronting their PCs.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So, if I'm following you - if the player says "I whisper a secret to the guard, because I recognize him from my past" that's author stance - but if the player says "the guard whispers a secret to me, because he recognizes me from my past" that's director stance?

 

[Manbearcat]

@Mike Eagling

Author stance is assumed when the person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions on a basis not solely borne of the character's priorities. Generally, the actual player's priorities have primacy here and are independent of the character's current, pre-established knowledge and perceptions. You're most often establishing backstory for your character, leveraging it immediately and using it as a means to an end; that end may be "the rule of cool", "genre proliferation", or merely "flavor/color of mechanical resolution of a conflict".

Director stance is assumed when the person playing a character determines aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion which is entirely separately from the character's knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore, the player has not only determined the character's actions, but also the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.

As @pemerton illuminates above, Director stance is pretty much a reframe of a situation or a challenge from adverse to benign. Actor stance is typically narrative power enough to frame a situation with respect to genre conceits or how you would like it to come off but lacking in the absolute narrative authority of Director stance (as you're typically still subjected to fortune resolution) and lacking in the control of multiple vectors of the environment utterly external to your character. Actor stance is basically just the narrative authority to say, "I'm Bob the Ranger (my character) and I'm Tracking the gnolls (interacting in the world in this way) and my Passive Perception is 25 (attending to the resolution of my task/action). Do I find anything?"

 

[pemerton]

So, if I'm following you - if the player says "I whisper a secret to the guard, because I recognize him from my past" that's author stance - but if the player says "the guard whispers a secret to me, because he recognizes me from my past" that's director stance?

I still regard them both as director stance - in both cases the player is doing something other than stipulate a choice/action for his/her PC.

Author stance, at least as The Forge uses that term, is not about scope of player control over gameworld. It's about reasons for declaring PC actions. If those reasons are derived from in-fiction considerations ("My guy wouldn't do that") you're in actor stance. If those reasons are derived from real-world considerations ("I want to play a guy who wouldn't do that") you're in author stance.

 

[Nagol]

Nagol, thanks for the post. Good stuff in there and I don't think we're in stark disagreement but would you be so kind, when you have a moment, as to break out number 1. I think it can be useful to the conversation that people are having and I might have some commentary. Maybe you could cite some systems (or even theoretical anecdotes) you have in mind. I don't want to comment here before I (erroneously) presume too much.

The first example that springs to mind comes from an Ars Magica campaign I ran. We had grown tired of the troupe style of play and wanted to move back to a single character per player. I adjusted the game by having each player create a Companion character, added a virtue allowing the purchase of magical arts, and halved the damage output of all forms of magic.

In that edition of Ars Magica, Companions could have up to 10 virtue points. A Virtue is a character customisation tool that covers the equivalent of Feats/class features in D&D and were only granted during character creation though specific Virtues can be awarded during play. Casting minimal magic (one form out of 10 and one technique out of 5) costs 3. Buying the entire list of magical arts cost 12 so was beyond any character even if no further Virtues were desired -- and there were many desirable virtues. This change allowed the narrative space for magic to remain open to the players, but limited any individual character.

The damage reduction shifted magic in combat away from direct damage towards defense, inquiry, and buffs. It increased the focus on the mundane in combat while leaving magic assault a credible secondary threat.
The upshot was a game where the magic felt more like Runequest in that most characters had a little magic of a type that emphasized their strengths.

A second example comes from a Fantasy Hero campaign. Magic was defined in a way where it was prone to disruption from specific non-magical elemental forces and hard to affect with other magicks. Simple magicks were vulnerable to one element, more powerful stuff to two. Need to break through a sidhe's glamer? Try a cold iron. Need to kill a demon? Give him a bellyful of silver or fire or both. But don't try to best it with magical fire -- it'll cackle as it rends you limb from limb.

Here the narrative space was defined in such a way that mundane combat was effective against all opponents, but magical combat effectively had a very limited impact against other magical opponents. All characters had access to mundane penetration of in-place magical effects but spell-casters didn't necessarily want to expose themselves to those features and restrict their own capabilities.

 

[Mike Eagling]

With apologies for a potential thread derail...

From Mike Mearls

The Forge might be useful. It's the sort of thing that you have to go look at and judge for yourself. I find it a bit too steeped in jargon, but a lot of the end ideas are useful to think about in terms of my work.

I think this quote neatly sums up my attitude to The Forge. I find it interesting that people have deconstructed RPGs in such an academic manner--the hobby/industry has "grown up" if you will--but it's tangential to the vast majority of people's experience, much as how people can enjoy Jane Austin without a degree in English Literature. Its terminology is arguably helpful in discussions such as this but, unlike in academic discourse, the jargon is not ubiquitous.

"Author stance", at least as I use it (from The Forge) refers to choosing actions for one's PC from the point of view of an author - ie "It would be pretty cool for my guy to do this awesome thing" - rather than from the point of view of the character him-/herself. In some playstyles, author stance then involves writing in a rationalising in-character motivation (eg "My guy loves to show off!").

I still regard them both as director stance - in both cases the player is doing something other than stipulate a choice/action for his/her PC.

Author stance, at least as The Forge uses that term, is not about scope of player control over gameworld. It's about reasons for declaring PC actions. If those reasons are derived from in-fiction considerations ("My guy wouldn't do that") you're in actor stance. If those reasons are derived from real-world considerations ("I want to play a guy who wouldn't do that") you're in author stance.

Yes, this is my interpretation of Author stance too. I wonder if "Author" is perhaps an inaccurate term--but that is a discussion for another thread!

Author stance is assumed when the person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions on a basis not solely borne of the character's priorities. Generally, the actual player's priorities have primacy here and are independent of the character's current, pre-established knowledge and perceptions. You're most often establishing backstory for your character, leveraging it immediately and using it as a means to an end; that end may be "the rule of cool", "genre proliferation", or merely "flavor/color of mechanical resolution of a conflict".

Whilst I agree with the first part of this I'm not so sure about the part I've emphasised, although that may just be a difference in perspective.

I believe it's possible to draw a (very loose) comparison between Actor stance and Method Acting: the player strives to remain in character throughout, using only in-character knowledge and psychological motivation to dictate the PC's actions.

In contrast, Pawn stance views the character sheet as little more than a player token in Monopoly: it is the means by which the player interacts with the game environment, with no regard to the motivation of the character itself. "Character" here is somewhat of a misnomer.

Author stance stands somewhere between the two. It is similar to Actor stance in that the psychological motivation of the character is often important to the player but this motivation is modified, possibly retroactively, by the metagame considerations of the player. Author stance is similar to Pawn stance in that the character is often a means to an end for the player to interact with the game environment (by doing "cool stuff") irrespective of what "the character" would be motivated to do in that situation. The Forge clearly distinguishes between Actor and Author stance and places Pawn stance as a subset of Author stance. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] suggests, the line is somewhat fuzzy in practicality if not in definition.

I don't think any of these three stances (Actor, Author and Pawn) have the "authority" to dictate the relationship between the PC and the guard. However, a successful skill check (for example) could be rationalised and explained in-fiction as such.

That's my take on things, at any rate

 

[Manbearcat]

Author stance stands somewhere between the two. It is similar to Actor stance in that the psychological motivation of the character is often important to the player but this motivation is modified, possibly retroactively, by the metagame considerations of the player. Author stance is similar to Pawn stance in that the character is often a means to an end for the player to interact with the game environment (by doing "cool stuff") irrespective of what "the character" would be motivated to do in that situation. The Forge clearly distinguishes between Actor and Author stance and places Pawn stance as a subset of Author stance. As @pemerton suggests, the line is somewhat fuzzy in practicality if not in definition.

I was going to frame Actor Stance with respect to Pawn Stance but I didn't want to weigh down the discussion with another piece of jargon that required further expansion. However, I think people understand Pawn Stance more intuitively so perhaps that was a needless concern.

Pawn Stance is indeed a subset of Actor Stance. That is the best way to differentiate them. If you're making a decision from Actor Stance that has 0 character-driven perspective relevance or interaction with backstory (and therefore risks likely incoherency within the fiction). Jumping off a cliff because you (the player) knows that you have a 100 % chance to survive the fall and perhaps only a 50/50 chance to survive combat with a troupe of giants up top is solely assuming Pawn Stance. Doing the exact same action, and regaling the table of your "in-character" reasoning/motivation and skinning the fiction in such a way that makes sense with respect to that decision/motivation is Actor Stance.

The same thing applies to the Door above. If you're doing it solely because you have a better chance at the mechanical resolution end of things and pay no heed to in character reasoning/motivation (and further, if you provide little in the way of evidence for trusting that guard), then you're in Pawn Stance. Rather, if you voiceover or information dump the table with your "in-character" reasoning/motivation (its much less risky than an infiltration and this guy has been looking to redeem this favor for some time so you want to give him that opportunity...and perhaps he believes in your cause) and skin the fiction in a way that makes sense with respect to that decision/motivation, then you're in Actor Stance.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6703609]Mike Eagling[/MENTION] - good post, though I'm perhaps a bigger Forge fan - discovering the Forge is the single biggest thing that improved my GMing.

But no XP for you, I'm still dry!