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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right. There's not a shred of reason to think that because rules don't preclude my fighter's longsword from detonating with a nuclear explosion every time he hits something, that explosion is included. Except that there is. Things like the above being true if your claim is correct are far more than a "shred of reason" to think that my claim is true. You don't get to just say that this thing that isn't precluded is automatically included, but not that nuclear explosion over there. Failure to preclude does not mean inclusion.

I would call this an excluded middle type of fallacy...

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that it is possible and often expected that players introduce elements into the game. Just because they may do so doesn't make them 'nuclear weapons', they can introduce any sort of thing that the GM could introduce. Both players and GM are generally bound by setting conceits and other similar conventions, such that their elements are introduced in a setting and genre appropriate way.

Again, I think this whole series of objections and positions are basically rooted in an unexamined substrate of Gygaxian dungeon play assumptions which are probably largely irrelevant, but have simply remained in place due to inertia, familiarity, and lack of expertise with other modes of play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Given the relative thinness of both character mental states, and setting/situation information, effective actor stance requires some degree of alignment between player (in PC build) and GM (in establishing situations). The most obvious contemporary form of this is some type of "scene-framed" play. But the earliest "traditional" form is setting- and/or metaplot-heavy play, in which the character's connection to/location in the setting and/or metaplot allows the player to proceed from PC mental states within the context of the GM's set-up.

Right, this was what I attempted to achieve by making an extremely detailed campaign with a large amount of action spelled out ahead of time, so that the PCs would be constantly engaged with the evolving story. Huge amount of work for what turns out to be only a limited amount of gain. It was a good campaign, but really because it just went off those rails pretty fast. The prep wasn't totally wasted, and was fun, but I would never take that option again.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Such as, "I want to see if I can find a path in the forest," yes.



I proved this false upthread. You do not need to establish motivations in advance for you to engage in a character's motivation. "I want to see if I can find a path in the forest." is 100% the PC's motivation. MY motivation is to roleplaying my PC, gain exp, treasure and levels.



Nor does continually trying to add pre-established motivations and "richness" as some sort of prerequisite for actor stance. You don't NEED either of those, even if they do help out.



The motivation automatically came from the PC, because it did not come from the player. The player decided based on the PC's knowledge and perceptions that the PC wanted to go into the forest. That is 100% an actor stance declaration.

Why? Why does the character want to go into the forest? What will the character acquire/confront/learn there? You're asserting that it's the PC's motivation to go into the forest without any support for this assertion, which leads to author stance. I was the PC to go into the forest because there will be exp, treasure, and levels there, not because the PC has a motivation to go into the forest. To have the later, you need to know some fairly basic things about the PC that are not often part of PC builds in D&D. In 5e, you should be able to state which Bond, Trait, Ideal, or Flaw is the motivation for the PC going into the woods.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that you absolutely should give the game a try. It's a blast. I'd say to start as a player first, if possible, before trying to GM, but either way, I think it would be really eye opening. I know that it was for me.

Some of the concepts are really odd-seeming coming to that game from a predominantly D&D playing group. My players had to kind of adjust to the player driven nature of selecting scores and to some of the other elements. Here's a few.

Stress is a resource that each PC has. They can "take Stress" to use certain abilities, or to push themselves to increase their chances for success or the results when they do succeed. They also can take Stress to avoid negative consequences of one of their actions. So if the GM decides that a poor roll on their part results in an enemy harming them, they can override that Gm decision and reduce the amount of harm they take by Resisting the Consequence, which potentially has a Stress cost. The amount of Stress you can take is finite, and when you take your 9th point of Stress, you're out of the score (knocked out, left for dead, otherwise removed from action depending on the fiction) and you also develop a Trauma, which is an ongoing mark of some kind from your ordeal. It's a really powerful way for the players to influence the fiction. I think my players found it odd at first, and kind of mistook Stress for the game's equivalent of Hit Points, which it kind of is to an extent, but once we played and they saw it in action, they grasped it pretty quickly. I mean, it's a resource to be used when needed much like many elements of D&D, so it's familiar in that sense.

Another element is the way gear is handled. At the start of a Score, each player declares the size of the load they will be bringing: light, normal, or heavy. The size of the load you choose to carry indicates how conspicuous you are and can impact certain actions you take that may require speed or stealth. Each load size grants you a certain number of inventory slots and each character has a list of possible items they can have, and that list indicates how many inventory slots each item takes up. You don't need to select what items you have until you actually decide that you need to use the item. So if the crew is infiltrating a rival gang's base, and they find themselves needing to climb a 25 foot wall, one of the characters can mark off "Burglary Gear" which lets them have a rope. Nice and simple.

Flashbacks took a lot more adjustment, but they work in a similar way to Load/Gear. When they were getting ready for a Score, the players would start discussing details and plans, and for the first few sessions, I let this happen. But I started giving them less time to prepare and discuss how to go about the Score, because the game wants you to get to the action, and then work out the plan as you play. Very much like how a heist movie will alternate between scenes of the crooks on the job with scenes that show how they prepared, the game allows you to Flashback to earlier and take actions in the past that help deal with how you face the challenges during the Score. The idea here is that your PCs are capable and would prepare and plan accordingly, but the game doesn't want to spend time with players staring at a map and talking about entry points, and endlessly debating variables. So this allows you to avoid that, and then focus your prep retroactively depending on what actually comes up.

There are more elements to the game that really put things in the players' hands, but these are the big three off the top of my head. My players found each one to be different than what they're used to as players, but as they got used to them, I think they've found them really interesting. The design of the game and the theme are deftly woven, as [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] mentions above, and I think seeing how the desired experience is supported by the game's design is also really enlightening.

I can't recommend the game enough, just for the fun of it. It's really enjoyable and my D&D players are really digging it. In addition, I think it would also add to these discussions we have online; I think one of the main reasons these talks devolve the way they do is because some folks are talking about all games, and others are talking only about one specific game. I think if you see some of these mechanics in play, you'll better appreciate some of the points others have brought up.

That all sounds very interesting. The reality is, though, that I will probably not have the opportunity to try the game. My circle of gamers is like me, so we aren't going to have the game itself, let alone someone who can run it and enough people to play. I do go to one or two game conventions a year, but I have had very poor experiences in trying out new RPG systems at cons, so I'm leery of trying it there. It's really a shame, since I do enjoy a broader range of experiences than sometimes comes across here.

 

[Maxperson]

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that it is possible and often expected that players introduce elements into the game. Just because they may do so doesn't make them 'nuclear weapons', they can introduce any sort of thing that the GM could introduce. Both players and GM are generally bound by setting conceits and other similar conventions, such that their elements are introduced in a setting and genre appropriate way.

Sure, but unless the game says it's okay or the DM/group says it's okay, it's not a part of the game. Everyone can sit down and add it in, or the DM can add it in, but it has to be added. Things that are not specifically precluded are not automatically included.

 

[Maxperson]

Why? Why does the character want to go into the forest?

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the decision be made fully upon the knowledge and perceptions of the PC.

What will the character acquire/confront/learn there?

More knowledge and perceptions upon which to make more actor stance decisions.

You're asserting that it's the PC's motivation to go into the forest without any support for this assertion, which leads to author stance.

This is flat out false. The support for it is the existence of the forest in front of the PC. The PC has decided based on his knowledge of the situation at hand according to his perceptions that he wants to go into the forest to look for a trail. That's purely character motivated. Support makes things smoother and easier to understand, but the lack of it does not equate to author stance, which requires that the motivation be the player's.

In 5e, you should be able to state which Bond, Trait, Ideal, or Flaw is the motivation for the PC going into the woods.

Or else not. Those are hardly an exhaustive list of why a PC might do something.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that the decision be made fully upon the knowledge and perceptions of the PC.



More knowledge and perceptions upon which to make more actor stance decisions.



This is flat out false. The support for it is the existence of the forest in front of the PC. The PC has decided based on his knowledge of the situation at hand according to his perceptions that he wants to go into the forest to look for a trail. That's purely character motivated. Support makes things smoother and easier to understand, but the lack of it does not equate to author stance, which requires that the motivation be the player's.



Or else not. Those are hardly an exhaustive list of why a PC might do something.

Yup, you've conclusively shown that you don't actually understand Actor stance. Hint, like with most Forge terminology, what it means is not strongly coupled with it's name -- it doesn't mean you pretend to act like your character, it means that the actions of the character directly stem from the motivations of the character -- they're desires, needs, and goals. Saying it doesn't matter why the PC went into the woods is the clearest indication you don't understand what Actor stance actually means.

Which is fine, really. Trying to hold a conversation using Forge terminology is rife with such misunderstandings, largely due to the obscurantist methods that seem to permeate Forge thinking. Actor stance has little to do with what I imagine you think of as 'acting like my character.' You can do that in Author stance just as well.

To simplify, unless you're making choices for the PC based entirely on their existing motivations -- and motivations a real person might have -- then you're not doing the Actor stance. So, unless you can actually answer "why?' from the PC's point of view before the action, you're not in Actor stance. If you decide that your PC goes into the woods and then figure out what a good reason to do so is to your PC, that's Author stance. It works better to just read the descriptions and ignore the labels.

To link this back into the larger discussion, using Actor stance is perfectly compatible with the player introducing fiction that fits the PC's motivations. If the PC is motivated by wanting to follow in Uncle Elmo's adventuring footsteps, then knowledge about trolls is right there and within the stance. It's also there in Author stance (or even Director stance). It can be not there in Author stance, and especially in the subset of Author of Pawn stance, which very closely fits determining knowledge of the PC not by ingame fiction and motivations but by game mechanics, which is probably why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] went there.

Personally, I think the stances are generally bogus, because they're only useful in very clear cases -- most of the time people play in multiple stances, either sequentially or even simultaneously. You're not limited to one need at a time. But arguing that a stance, especially Actor stance, prevents the player from introducing knowledge to the character of their own volition is completely missing the point on multiple layers.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but unless the game says it's okay or the DM/group says it's okay, it's not a part of the game. Everyone can sit down and add it in, or the DM can add it in, but it has to be added. Things that are not specifically precluded are not automatically included.

LOL, so games can only include things that are written down as part of them? By whom? Would you please explain this concept to Gary Gygax, who said, and I quote

"Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability."

(1e DMG Preface, Page 7)

Trivially, what about a new spell, poison, monster, item? A new class? A house rule? Where exactly does this "not part of the game" start?

Clearly this is pretty much bunk. D&D is basically a framework. This is more or less true of all RPGs, they are very open ended games which lack closed structure. If we were playing Monopoly, I would agree with you, or Chess as Gygax points out. However, RPGs simply cannot be put into that sort of a 'can' since the subject matter of the game is literally human behavior, an almost infinite subject matter.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Personally, I think the stances are generally bogus, because they're only useful in very clear cases -- most of the time people play in multiple stances, either sequentially or even simultaneously. You're not limited to one need at a time. But arguing that a stance, especially Actor stance, prevents the player from introducing knowledge to the character of their own volition is completely missing the point on multiple layers.

Not bogus, but they aren't meant to be used to label each instant of play as belonging to one or another. Instead they are meant to provide insight into the different types of process which go on during RP. Each stance represents a certain approach or relationship between the player and the game (and thus the PC she's playing, etc.).

I don't think that 'Forge Terminology' is really obscurantist, it is simply a formalistic and fairly academic sort of technical language who's purpose is to facilitate these kinds of discussions by avoiding excessive arguments, like the one everyone is having now with Max. Personally I find that there are a number of areas where theories advanced and popularized on The Forge don't strike me as terribly useful (the whole 'GNS' stuff), but stances are not one of those cases. Beyond that I think people mostly just do NOT actually understand what the theories there were, and thus don't have a real grasp of the terminology, so it has been bastardized and has limited utility in general conversation.

 

[Maxperson]

LOL, so games can only include things that are written down as part of them? By whom? Would you please explain this concept to Gary Gygax, who said, and I quote

"Naturally, everything possible cannot be included in the whole of this work. As a participant in the game, I would not care to have anyone telling me exactly what must go into a campaign and how it must be handled; if so, why not play some game like chess? As the author I also realize that there are limits to my creativity and imagination. Others will think of things I didn't, and devise things beyond my capability."

(1e DMG Preface, Page 7)

Trivially, what about a new spell, poison, monster, item? A new class? A house rule? Where exactly does this "not part of the game" start?

Clearly this is pretty much bunk. D&D is basically a framework. This is more or less true of all RPGs, they are very open ended games which lack closed structure. If we were playing Monopoly, I would agree with you, or Chess as Gygax points out. However, RPGs simply cannot be put into that sort of a 'can' since the subject matter of the game is literally human behavior, an almost infinite subject matter.

Thanks for quoting the perfect support for what I said! Gygax is talking about the DM adding stuff to the game.