A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[pemerton]

In an RPG, if something isn't precluded by the rules, it is NOT included in the game at all unless the DM says it is.

Sure, anyone can have a new idea, but in 1e it was the DM who could put it into the game. And those ideas were not automatically included by virtue of not being precluded.

It still remains the case that there is not a shred of a reason to think the first-quoted claim is true.

Even if one accepts your claim about AD&D - and in practice there were AD&D games where PCs invented new player-side elements, like races and classes - that provides no reason to suppose the first-quoted claim is true, because that putative feature of AD&D doesn't generalise.

 

[Aldarc]

You don't specify "only," unless you mean only.

I guess that I should not be surprised by more intellectually dishonest semantics from you. Assuming people aren't trying to score points in a debate and actually demonstrate a willingness to discuss the matter in good faith, most would not apply such a ridiculously restrictive, literalist reading of "only." Otherwise we find ourselves in the discussion where the dishonest argument that "Ron Edwards does not include the word 'experience' since it is 'only knowledge and perceptions,' so character experience is not part of Actor stance" is presented as a valid reading of the definition.

So where does 'motivations' factor into the definition? I would wager that most halfway intelligent people would implicitly recognize that it is entailed in the "decisions and actions using..." part of the phrase, especially given that motivations generally inform the thought process of decisions and actions most (ir)rational agents make.

So you found someone else who is of the opinion that motivation is necessary. How does that have anything to do with The Forge's definition? And as I said, the motivation for the PC is there in the forest example. It's not a deep motivation, but it is in fact a motivation of the PC.

Surely you recognize that the definitions provided by the Forge are fairly minimal or barebones? I don't think that they were meant to be all-comprehensive of everything that is entailed in or surrounding the understanding of the terms. This is generally how we understand how definitions work. Definitions are minimally descriptive but not comprehensively prescriptive.

Here's a tidbit you forgot to bold in your quote above.

The blog entry and emboldened text were meant to highlight the inclusion of "motivations" in the understanding of the Actor stance. It was not meant to highlight or discuss anything else. So your attempted "gotcha moments" kinda fall flat. But if you are making yourself feel better about yourself for feeling clever, then I'm glad you are getting something out of this conversation, but you are missing the point.

Edit: If you want to use this blog entry to argue with pemerton about walking into a forest or whatever, then you are welcome to do so. But again, my purpose was simply to correct your error regarding the exclusion of "motivation" in the general understanding of the Actor stance. Nothing more.

You also missed this part.

Except for the part where I mention it towards the end. If you are going to respond, please bother to put in a modicum of effort to read what I wrote, Max. That is a courteous thing to do. Otherwise it makes you look like an inconsiderate dolt.

What does stance have to do with trolls? Trolls are not even a part of this particular discussion.

Simply bringing this back 'round to an earlier point. I am permitted to do that.

 

[Maxperson]

It still remains the case that there is not a shred of a reason to think the first-quoted claim is true.

Even if one accepts your claim about AD&D - and in practice there were AD&D games where PCs invented new player-side elements, like races and classes - that provides no reason to suppose the first-quoted claim is true, because that putative feature of AD&D doesn't generalise.

Sure, and not one of those side elements made it into the game without the DM's okay. Either specifically after looking it over, or in general if he told the player that they could just add things. Without that permission, though, they didn't make it into AD&D games.

And again, your claim that failure to preclude = inclusion hasn't been supported by you at all. It's just a claim you make. I on the other hand have a myriad of quotes by Gygax, as well as reason(no longsword nukes being automatically included) to back me up.

 

[pemerton]

So what we have is The Forge, the place that invented the stances saying that ONLY character knowledge and perceptions are required, and you don't say "only" without meaning only, especially a place like The Forge which spends a lot of thought on wording.

Declaring an action "using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have" precludes using knowledge and perceptions that the character doesn't have - such as the player's belief that adventure and XP are to be found in the wood.

In the same Ron Edwards essay, the following passage can be found:

Another common misunderstanding of Actor Stance is to confound it with "acting" in the histrionic, communicative sense - using a characteristic voice, gestures, and so on. The communicative and demonstrative aspects of "acting" are not involved in Actor Stance at all, which only means that the player is utilizing the character's knowledge and priorities to determine what the character does.​

I've highlighted the relevant phrase. The contrast between actor and author/pawn stance is precisely between declaring an action based on extrapolation from the character's mental states and declaring an action because that will serve some real-world purpose.

Ron Edwards is, in fact, not terribly careful about how he provides canonical statements of his key concepts. Which is not uncommon even in academic social science, let alone work being done in this sort of context. You can see this also in his discussion of "story now", where he provides a canonical definition of narrativism as engaging with a premise in the literary sense, but then provides as an examplea of a narrativist-inclined games The Dying Earth RPG, which doesn't really engage with a premise but rather aims at producing ironic humour that will entertain the real-life participants.

But if one reads the whole essay, the analysis usually becomes clear. On this occaion you appear not to have done that, though, as you seem to be resolutely asserting that an action declaration can be driven by real-world priorities and yet be actor stance.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess that I should not be surprised by more intellectually dishonest semantics from you. Assuming people aren't trying to score points in a debate and actually demonstrate a willingness to discuss the matter in good faith, most would not apply such a ridiculously restrictive, literalist reading of "only." Otherwise we find ourselves in the discussion where the dishonest argument that "Ron Edwards does not include the word 'experience' since it is 'only knowledge and perceptions,' so character experience is not part of Actor stance" is presented as a valid reading of the definition.

Trying to write of the specific use of "only" as something that they threw in for the hell of it and didn't really mean is just more of your disingenuous arguing style. And character experience is only a part of actor stance insofar as it gives the PC more knowledge and perceptions to base its actions on.

Surely you recognize that the definitions provided by the Forge are fairly minimal or barebones? I don't think that they were meant to be all-comprehensive of everything that is entailed in or surrounding the understanding of the terms. This is generally how we understand how definitions work. Definitions are minimally descriptive but not comprehensively prescriptive.

Sure, which is why I'm willing to accept the simple motivations(or better) as being a part of it, since they are automatically included with declarations.

The blog entry and emboldened text were meant to highlight the inclusion of "motivations" in the understanding of the Actor stance. It was not meant to highlight or discuss anything else. So your attempted "gotcha moments" kinda fall flat. But if you are making yourself feel better about yourself for feeling clever, then I'm glad you are getting something out of this conversation, but you are missing the point.

Pointing out that it only requires motivations and not a multi-page theses on motivations is not a "gotcha" and to accuse me of that is just more disingenuousness on your part. A simple motivation fits the blog's requirements.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So making decisions based on PC knowledge and perceptions is author stance? Once again, The Forge's own definition of actor stance is below. And no, I did not retroactively put a motivation onto the PC. The PC's motivation ("I want to see what is in the forest) was first and primary.

"In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have."

So we see, ONLY knowledge and perception matters for actor stance. We can't even include motivation at all, since it specifies ONLY those two things. However, as I pointed out, the motivation is entirely the PC's anyway.

You bolded too late. The stances are about where decisions are made, not just what thry are made with. If you're in Actor stance, you can explain why you went into the forest at that time because the decision was made solely within the character's frame -- ie, his knowledge, motivations, and needs.

If you can't explain why at the time if the decision, but can backfill that reason using only knowledge the character has, that Author stance, because the decision is made and then the character's knowledge is considered.

You can easily do Author stance within your personal limitations on character knowledge. In fact, the player knowing trolls are harmed by fire but choosing to have his PC act without this knowledge because the player considers that cheating requires Author stance -- the decision is based on player motivations, not PC motivations.

Once again, you've chosen to focus on one part of a definition and ignore the rest, much like you did with arbitrary.

 

[pemerton]

A very simple motivation is all that is necessary to meet that blog's position, so "I want to see what is in the forest." is sufficient. Curiosity is a great motivator.

Sure. Is it established that your character is curious? Then the decision to explore the forest might be taken in actor stance.

Are you, the player curious, so you decide to have your PC explore the forest and impute that motivation to your PC? Then the decision to explore the forest has been taken in author stance. (If the imputation doesn't occur, we have an instance of pawn stance.)

None of this is rocket science.

 

[pemerton]

your claim that failure to preclude = inclusion hasn't been supported by you at all

I don't even understand what this means. I certainly haven't claimed it.

I'm not making any sort of claim about the structure or inner logic of RPG rules. I'm saying that your claim that the GM is the authority for determining whether something new (a new rule, a new story element) is incorporated into a RPG is without foundation. That authority can be allocated to non-GM participants.

 

[Aldarc]

Trying to write of the specific use of "only" as something that they threw in for the hell of it and didn't really mean is just more of your disingenuous arguing style. And character experience is only a part of actor stance insofar as it gives the PC more knowledge and perceptions to base its actions on.

You are making a Strawman argument, Max. That is most definitely disingenuous.

Pointing out that it only requires motivations and not a multi-page theses on motivations is not a "gotcha" and to accuse me of that is just more disingenuousness on your part. A simple motivation fits the blog's requirements.

I am arguing genuinely, Max. I am skeptical, however, that you are, particularly given the earlier strawman. The "gotcha moments" I mention are your whole "you forgot this part" spiel. I am inclined to believe that they are meant to be gotcha moments due to your tone and repetition of the phrase, with me "forgetting" implying that you are uncovering a fault. At least that is how I genuinely read it. Either way, they do not speak to the contextual purpose or argumentative thrust of my post, which I clarify in my edit that I have since added to the post you quote.

I'm not making any sort of claim about the structure or inner logic of RPG rules. I'm saying that your claim that the GM is the authority for determining whether something new (a new rule, a new story element) is incorporated into a RPG is without foundation. That authority can be allocated to non-GM participants.

At the very least, this assumption of authority varies throughout RPGs.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*