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

[pemerton]

If the established fiction doesn't tell me whether or not my character knows about trolls, then actor stance in a troll encounter won't be possible.

If the fiction doesn't inform you if your character knows about trolls, and the mechanics were also negative in this regard (say no, or failure on die roll), then that informs you that that your character does not know about trolls

If the rules of a game support your account, then the established fiction tells me that my character does not know about trolls. Or to put it another way, you're suggesting a game which makes the conditional I stated - the established fiction doesn't tell me whether or not my character knows about trolls - impossible; because you're positing that if the established fiction (including check results) doesn't establish that my PC knows, then my PC doesn't know.

EDIT:

That's a False Dichotomy. The choices aren't established fiction or no actor stance. The choices also include not knowing if the PC knows about trolls and having to make a roll to see if the PC possesses the knowledge. It's very possible to engage actor stance if there is no knowledge established by the fiction prior to the encounter. A simple knowledge check will suffice, and then the player can proceed to make the decision based on what his character knows about trolls.

Who declares the knowledge check? If the player, then the knowledge check itself is clearly an instance of author stance - a player priority means that the character tries to recollect everything s/he ever heard about trolls.

If the GM, then the check does not involve any stance on the player's part, as the player hasn't made any decision for the character.

Either way, the check might establish some further fiction (eg that the character knows about trolls) that can then inform a downstream action declaration.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought that because Max has strongly linked acting and Actor stance and you were referring to his position.

I've never linked them. That's a Strawman argument you have engaged in. Hell, I've never even mentioned acting and "acting" as you describe it here isn't at all what I am talking about or going on in my game.

 

[pemerton]

If authoring priorities for the PC(not for the player) = a failure to be able to go into actor stance, then actor stance does not exist. All priorities for the PC are authored by the player.

Let's go back to Ron Edwards:

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

* In Author 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 Pawn stance.)

. . .

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.​

The contrast between actor and author stance is the contrast between two methods of deciding what a character does.

The player can decide based on his/her priorities: this is author stance (assuming that an appropriate motivation is also imputed to the chracter), or otherwise pawn stance.

Or the player can decide based on his/her reasoning from the character's established mental states: this is actor stance.

The timing of the establishment of character mental states is quite central to stance. Author stance means establishing a mental state as part of the process of action declaration - that's what retroactively motivating refers to.

Actor stance doesn't depend on motivations never being authored (as you say, that would be impossible). It depends on motivations being established prior to action declarations, so that they can inform those action declarations. That's why - to repeat a point I've made several times upthread - many of the RPGs published in the immediate post-D&D era (I've pointed to RQ and C&S as two prominent examples) included setting frameworks, and the integration of PC generation into the setting, which would establish the character motivations necessary for actor stance.

 

[Numidius]

I dunno, IMO there is a significant difference between using the mechanics to determine if one's character knows about trolls, and another in which the player uses their knowledge about falling damage and their current hit point total to inform themselves if their character can survive jumping off a 40 foot height before their action declaration. The latter I would classify as metagaming, not the former. Furthermore in 5e at least, the DM needs to permit your roll, so it is an instruction by the DM.
If my definition of metagaming is falling short to differentiate between the two, which it probably is, then that is on me - but I'm speaking clearly enough for all to understand.

I don't see any problem in having the Pc well aware of his Hp. I mean, it's like having an 18 in charisma, or strenght: a pro boxer IRL is conscious of his own strenght, endurance, and overall technique ability, before jumping on a ring to fight, actually even before organizing the match itself.
The problem lies in how the Falling Damage rules apply, rather. I'd say for the casual jump of a cliff in the wilderland, with trees, rocks protruding and water below, it's easy to explain how the Pc managed to survive. If the case is a straight freefall on a floor of concrete, and the table wants it to be a deadly affair, use a saving throw, or flip a coin: head survived but crippled, tail dead.
Otherwise embrace the fact that Hp as they stand are a (meta)game resource to do stuff out of the ordinary.

 

[Sadras]

If the rules of a game support your account, then the established fiction tells me that my character does not know about trolls. Or to put it another way, you're suggesting a game which makes the conditional I stated - the established fiction doesn't tell me whether or not my character knows about trolls - impossible; because you're positing that if the established fiction (including check results) doesn't establish that my PC knows, then my PC doesn't know.

Yes, if I understood you correctly.
It becomes interesting in games/tables where part of the rules of the game, allows for players to inject an uncle Elmo.

 

[Numidius]

If my Pc survives a freefall, how could he be not aware that he can easily survive freefalls?
It's established fiction by then.

Same after managing to win a fight against six orcs. The Pc can go into the tavern and say: "I can handle six orcs by myself using this!" (Drops loudly his sword on the thick wooden table in front of a dozen drinking dwarves)

 

[Sadras]

I don't see any problem in having the Pc well aware of his Hp. I mean, it's like having an 18 in charisma, or strenght: a pro boxer IRL is conscious of his own strenght, endurance, and overall technique ability, before jumping on a ring to fight, actually even before organizing the match itself.
The problem lies in how the Falling Damage rules apply, rather. I'd say for the casual jump of a cliff in the wilderland, with trees, rocks protruding and water below, it's easy to explain how the Pc managed to survive. If the case is a straight freefall on a floor of concrete, and the table wants it to be a deadly affair, use a saving throw, or flip a coin: head survived but crippled, tail dead.
Otherwise embrace the fact that Hp as they stand are a (meta)game resource to do stuff out of the ordinary.

My post reflected on the relevance of falling damage and hit points and how they might be used in a metagame scenario and how this differentiates from engaging in a mechanic which determines what a character knows.

Your post seems to encourage some house rules to mitigate some metagame thinking.

EDIT: I do like the coin toss.

 

[Numidius]

My post reflected on the relevance of falling damage and hit points and how they might be used in a metagame scenario and how this differentiates from engaging in a mechanic which determines what a character knows.

Your post seems to encourage some house rules to mitigate some metagame thinking.

Yeah, but after the unaware Pc survives the freefall, the Pc now is aware he can do it. Or not?

 

[Sadras]

Yeah, but after the unaware Pc survives the freefall, the Pc now is aware he can do it. Or not?

Yes sure, if the conditions are similar enough.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Game world facts are arbitrary now?

Completely.