A Question Of Agency?

[Thomas Shey]

Not all players default to actor stance, and not all games encourage actor stance as the default mode of play.

That's not even actor. Its IC. Actor stance players can still do things hostile to their character's survival, they just do it from within their internal sense of the character, and where they'd end up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's not even actor. Its IC. Actor stance players can still do things hostile to their character's survival, they just do it from within their internal sense of the character, and where they'd end up.

So playing in character means never doing things the character would do if it would harm the character? I struggle to understand a position where you'd say playing in character means you only advocate for the character's interests when doing so is beneficial. I must not understand, but you're clearly drawing a clear different from inhabiting the character's wants and needs as Actor stance and doing so In Character.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It only modestly helps because of the preselection of people who even bother to use a board like this, and then those who bother to respond to polls. Its probably slightly better than those who will engage in extended discussion, but I doubt meaningfully so since the primary gate of "people who bother to use game related fora" is upfront there. That's not a big population on a whole, and likely skims off whole classes of potential respondents.

Making the perfect the enemy of the good or just better is silly. The question is one where you've asserted there may be a substantial population who think that success with complication feels like failure. A poll, even here, would elicit data that would help in that if a substantial number of people respond in agreement, you've made your point. The only reason to argue against would be concern that such a population wouldn't show up, and, while not conclusive, that would be a mark against. If you feel strongly about your assertion, surely it's worth the effort -- we'll learn something either way, even without a perfect instrument or perfect participation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Making the perfect the enemy of the good or just better is silly.

I don't think suggesting the sample location distorts the result too much is demanding perfection. Its just suggesting that surveys need to screen for things as much as possible or they get distorted results. You obviously don't think that'd be relevant here and a I do. If you want to read ulterior motives into that, that's on you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So playing in character means never doing things the character would do if it would harm the character?

I suspect Lanefan is assuming people not playing characters with suicidal tendencies, and without that characters will at least somewhat be prone to survival-positive outcomes. "Never" is a broad term because a lot of things can happen, but it doesn't change the basic premise in that case unless you assume a character with one degree or another of a deathwish.

I struggle to understand a position where you'd say playing in character means you only advocate for the character's interests when doing so is beneficial. I must not understand, but you're clearly drawing a clear different from inhabiting the character's wants and needs as Actor stance and doing so In Character.

An Actor stance player is not immune to doing things for dramatic purposes alone; he may pay a lot of attention to what makes sense for a character but he's not allergic to putting his thumb on the scale to produce a dramatic scene. A purely IC player doesn't do that, except to the degree it arises naturally from the character's nature.

Basically, it comes down to this situation: A character is presented with three choices, all of which make some degree of sense in-character. What criterion does the player use to decide? An IC player will, barring randomness in his own mood, default to the one that seems the most in character. An Actor player may well chose the one that's most interesting to portray.

(I'm ignoring for the moment Deep-IC or immersive players because that's a rabbithole that can lead to some strange places).

 

[pemerton]

Is there some reason there can’t be hills to the north?

If the GM decides there are hills to the north, is he making them appear out of thin air?

I imagine we’re kind of taking out of thin air to mean different things. I’m looking at it more as something unlikely or sudden or incongruous. Something out of place.

<snip>

Do you allow survival checks or the like when PCs are in the wilderness? Can they find shelter or water or food sources by making a wilderness or nature skill check? Are they conjuring these things out of thin air? Does the GM need to have this level of detail determined ahead of time?

What about random tables? Aren’t results determined by random tables coming out of thin air?

Your example of Survival checks is - it seems to me, in this context - the same as my example of Gather Information.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Basically, it comes down to this situation: A character is presented with three choices, all of which make some degree of sense in-character. What criterion does the player use to decide? An IC player will, barring randomness in his own mood, default to the one that seems the most in character. An Actor player may well chose the one that's most interesting to portray.

Isn't this more Author Stance than Actor Stance?

 

[Lanefan]

So an oasis in the desert? Would that be a result that a player could craft from thin air by making a roll? Or would it have to be on the GM’s map already?

Ideally it's on the map already. However, this isn't always practical, so...

And what if the GM has “Oasis” on his list of Random Desert Encounters? Is that okay?

...this might come into play; though in truth it's far more likely that instead of stumbling directly on to an oasis they'll have stumbled on to a trail or tracks leading to it, or have seen someone/something going toward it.

I don’t think most of those matter, really. I don’t think the rolls are being made simultaneously, right? So a F on the first roll pretty much means it’s F on landing safely and quietly, right?

Not necessarily: even if you fail the jump and fall to the alley you could still - given a bit of good luck - manage to land safely (maybe you'll take a bit of temporary hit point damage or equivalent but you won't pick up any injuries that will immediately impede your speed or gracefulness) and be quiet about it.

Any of the mixed results you’ve offered above that may actually apply can be summed up by success with complication.

Yes, they can. My point is that absent those rolls as idea-prompts most GMs will at best only come up with two or three potential mixed outcomes on the fly, rather than the six that are possible. I'd rather see them all be in play, and the added rolling puts them there.

 

[Lanefan]

So playing in character means never doing things the character would do if it would harm the character? I struggle to understand a position where you'd say playing in character means you only advocate for the character's interests when doing so is beneficial.

Yeah, I have to say I don't quite get this one either. Ideally the player figures out what the character's interests are and then advocates for them, be they beneficial or harmful or (often) a bit of both, be it in the fiction or at the table.

Edit to add: @Thomas Shey 's subsequent post makes his point much clearer.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn't this more Author Stance than Actor Stance?

I'll admit the lines between the two never seemed clear-cut to me, but my understanding always was that an Author stance player would actively change the nature of the character if he thought the result was more interesting; he doesn't feel obliged to stick out his original concept the whole way. An Actor stance player won't, but as I noted before, will still choose the lesser (but still in character) choice if he thinks its more interesting to portray.

If you think that's a fine line, I always felt that about all the lines separating Director/Author/Actor/IC.