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

[Michael Silverbane]

Disagree. Player motive for uncle Rusty injection is completely different to the one I stated.

Player motive is completely irrelevant to the adjudication of the action declaration. If we're ruling out degenerate play (i.e. someone cheating or being a jerk), then the resolution is the same, regardless of motive. There is (to me) no functional difference.

We are discussing actor and author stances and whether the player temporarily moves from one stance to another in this specific situation (character knowledge).

I don't find that distinction either necessary or useful. More important (again, to me) is the question of whether the game covers the actions and its resolution.

In some versions of D&D, there are rules covering if and how much useful knowledge of a creature a character might posses, so it is appropriate to consult those rules when such an action declaration is made.

In some other games, there are no such rules, so some sort of ruling about such questions should be reached.
Maybe it is determined that such knowledge is in no way important or useful (i.e. Trolls and other monsters are not specifically vulnerable to any particular attack, nor are they particularly invulnerable to any form of attack). Maybe it is determined that any such knowledge is widely known and automatically recalled. Maybe it is determined that characters know what the players know. Any which way, the table will have to figure it out for themselves.

 

[Sadras]

I don't find that distinction either necessary or useful.

We (myself and yourself) do not appear to be in any disagreement with your left-field conversation point regarding action declarations, adjudication, character knowledge and editions rules.

However, your self-proclaimed lack of interest in the stance issue has indeed been noted. I bid you a good weekend sir.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

A pro boxer knows that one mistake can spell a knockout, and those mistakes do happen. A PC will know he is strong, but not that he has an 18. He will know people like him and it's not difficult to persuade people of things, but not that he has an 18. He will know that his is skilled at avoiding hits, but that one hit can kill him if he makes a mistake, and so he is not aware of hit points.

You can play with the PC aware of those things, but the game does not assume such knowledge as it's purely metagame information.

 

[Numidius]

A pro boxes knows that one mistake can spell a knockout, and those mistakes do happen. A PC will know he is strong, but not that he has an 18. He will know people like him and it's not difficult to persuade people of things, but not that he has an 18. He will know that his is skilled at avoiding hits, but that one hit can kill him if he makes a mistake, and so he is not aware of hit points.

You can play with the PC aware of those things, but the game does not assume such knowledge as it's purely metagame information.

Don't get me wrong, certainly not the actual numbers, like 18...

But One hit can kill them? Of course this is not true, and a Pc is aware of that, because it actually happens in the fiction. Happens every combat, as soon as levels go up.
Or are you saying that what happens during a combat is not what a Pc sees in his mind?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. Presumably there was prior play that got me to the forest, so I would have more to go on than the bare bones I'm describing. I'm only limiting myself to the bare bones in this instance to show that I can still make decisions in actor stance, even in a highly limited situation than that. I have also been in similar positions more than once. Some DMs I have played with occasionally started the campaign off with us in the middle of nowhere and said, "What do you do?" I was still able to step into my character and make decisions as him.

Can you see our point though? You can't be an 'actor' without some sort of characterization to act on. If your character is in a bigger context and has history or backstory then you start to have options, but you cannot call it actor stance with nothing BECAUSE without character motivations, that is needs and wants the character is aiming to fulfill, the only source of motivations is meta-game, which is author/pawn stance or maybe director stance.

There simply is no 'him' to inhabit. What you are doing is 'being yourself', and YOU have an agenda, which is outside the game. If you truly start asking 'why'? and don't stop until you get to the bottom of it, you'll eventually reach meta-game. IMHO what you are doing is confusing author and actor. You say to yourself "well, here I am in this RPG and I need to do something, and it is supposed to be adventurous. I'll go into the woods!" (note that as R.E. or one of them stated, you are in first person here, but that isn't the same as actor stance). Now you begin to impute motive by creating characterization after the fact, maybe even a split second after, when you say "oh, I'm a curious fellow, that's why I go into the woods." That's being an author and building a character by imputing motives post-hoc.

Later on you go back in your mind and you think, "well, I invented this new character and he was curious and he went into the woods" but is that what happened? If you, the player, thought the adventure was in the plains, then you'd be motivated to go into the plains. I mean, at best you have NO actual knowledge, you could roll the dice! Who's to say that one action or the other is "out of character" because you have no character to be out of!

 

[Maxperson]

But One hit can kill them? Of course this is not true, and a Pc is aware of that, because it actually happens in the fiction. Happens every combat, as soon as levels go up.
Or are you saying that what happens during a combat is not what a Pc sees in his mind?

It is true in the fiction, at least if you play by hit point RAW it is. "Hits" are not usually hits. They are near misses, scratches, etc. The only real hit is the one that takes you down to 0 and can kill you.

"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From the 1e DMG.

"Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it."

The game is pretty clearly the DMs. Gygax does often caution against abusing the power or altering things too much, but he has in fact given that ultimate power to the DM.

Actually, this passage is rather key in terms of understanding the evolution of RPGs. "for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot."

Why is this? Because if the game is the one the DM 'makes up on the spot' then it is under the arbitrary control of the DM!!!! Players want, and always wanted, to have the assurance that their authority would not be compromised. Nobody is arguing that Gygax was really BIG on player authority, but he well knew that the instant the DM started screwing with things that the players believed they were entitled to (hitting the orc on a 15 for example) then the gig was up!

As far as the last sentence in that quote goes, I think this was Gary's undoing as a game designer. He went a long ways, but he failed to get beyond his own creative agenda, at least in a formal sense. It is telling that this is the last significant piece of writing which he did for a game system, it is 1977 and he never authors another game book, except 1e UA which really is nothing significant. OTOH I would point out that anyone familiar with the original GH campaign, as described in various Dragon articles and other places, will know that players like Rob Kuntz and others had a huge amount of autonomy in his actual campaign, to the degree of creating entire nations, making up major world events, creating NPCs, cities, organizations, and many other things. Gygax might have started the thing, and maintained some level of control, but it was NOT a work of personal authorship. Certainly not in all the ways you seem to imply.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you see our point though? You can't be an 'actor' without some sort of characterization to act on. If your character is in a bigger context and has history or backstory then you start to have options, but you cannot call it actor stance with nothing BECAUSE without character motivations, that is needs and wants the character is aiming to fulfill, the only source of motivations is meta-game, which is author/pawn stance or maybe director stance.

There are certainly more motivations with a bigger context, history and/or backstory, but there is at least some small motivation involved with each declaration you make based purely on character knowledge and perception.

There simply is no 'him' to inhabit. What you are doing is 'being yourself', and YOU have an agenda, which is outside the game. If you truly start asking 'why'? and don't stop until you get to the bottom of it, you'll eventually reach meta-game. IMHO what you are doing is confusing author and actor. You say to yourself "well, here I am in this RPG and I need to do something, and it is supposed to be adventurous. I'll go into the woods!" (note that as R.E. or one of them stated, you are in first person here, but that isn't the same as actor stance). Now you begin to impute motive by creating characterization after the fact, maybe even a split second after, when you say "oh, I'm a curious fellow, that's why I go into the woods." That's being an author and building a character by imputing motives post-hoc.

The "him" starts to be developed with even a single action based on character knowledge and perception. It's not a lot, but it's sufficient for actor stance. We have motivation, PC knowledge, and PC perception as the entirety of the reason for the PC to take the action. That establishes both actor stance, and the beginning of the history and context of the PC. Nothing of it is based on my personal agenda as a player.

Later on you go back in your mind and you think, "well, I invented this new character and he was curious and he went into the woods" but is that what happened?

No. This is 100%, factually false. I am not going back in my mind and thinking those things after the action is taken. I am thinking those things as the PC as I take the action. They are his motives, not mine.

 

[Numidius]

It is true in the fiction, at least if you play by hit point RAW it is. "Hits" are not usually hits. They are near misses, scratches, etc. The only real hit is the one that takes you down to 0 and can kill you.

"Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious."

Sure. Not usually hits, I know that... nonetheless a veteran Pc knows he can stand a lot of rounds, enemies, fights, before receiving harm. Or do the players pretend their Pc to be afraid as if they could die instantly?

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, this passage is rather key in terms of understanding the evolution of RPGs. "for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot."

Why is this? Because if the game is the one the DM 'makes up on the spot' then it is under the arbitrary control of the DM!!!! Players want, and always wanted, to have the assurance that their authority would not be compromised. Nobody is arguing that Gygax was really BIG on player authority, but he well knew that the instant the DM started screwing with things that the players believed they were entitled to (hitting the orc on a 15 for example) then the gig was up!

As far as the last sentence in that quote goes, I think this was Gary's undoing as a game designer. He went a long ways, but he failed to get beyond his own creative agenda, at least in a formal sense. It is telling that this is the last significant piece of writing which he did for a game system, it is 1977 and he never authors another game book, except 1e UA which really is nothing significant. OTOH I would point out that anyone familiar with the original GH campaign, as described in various Dragon articles and other places, will know that players like Rob Kuntz and others had a huge amount of autonomy in his actual campaign, to the degree of creating entire nations, making up major world events, creating NPCs, cities, organizations, and many other things. Gygax might have started the thing, and maintained some level of control, but it was NOT a work of personal authorship. Certainly not in all the ways you seem to imply.

He did author more books, just not for D&D. He created Mythus Dangerous Journeys in 1992. It bought it and it was interesting, but very complex.