Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7584001" data-attributes="member: 23751"><p>I understand and I'm saying you are wrong. If I have no background, and nothing else to go off of, and the DM says to me, "There is are light woods ahead of you," that is sufficient for me to achieve actor stance. My character has knowledge of the woods, has perceived the woods, and I can based off those things inform the DM as to what action I take. If I declare that I got into the woods and look for a trail through," that is an actor stance declaration. </p><p></p><p>This "richness" you describe doesn't need to be present.</p><p></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>This is a bad example. In a story who cares about stance. Stance is irrelevant. In an RPG, if a player is playing Spot, he will determine the motivations and such. Most likely though, the DM is just going to describe to the players that the PCs see a Dog yapping in front of a door." and the PCs can use that knowledge and their perceptions to make an actor stance declaration about what they want to do.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Writing a book is not roleplaying, so you are comparing apples and oranges here.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>We don't need to know his mental state. We only need to know what he knows and perceives about the situation. You are ascribing more to actor stance than is required or included in the Forge's definition. </em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>You don't need to extract it. Throngor perceives that the caves exist and knows where they are. His actor stance action declaration in response to that knowledge and perception is to mount a personal assault on the Caves. That's all you need. More richness like motivations and such make things smoother and more enjoyable, but they are not necessary for actor stance to occur. </em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>I disagree. The adventuring prince/noble is a trope. My PC could marry the princess and still go off and search for the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth with his buddies in his free time. </em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>I also never viewed the titles in the 1e PHB as something the PCs knew about, but were rather for the players' benefit. Level is an out of character concept, and the title structure was silly in the sequence given to us. You're a veteran before you are a swordsman. You go from hero to swashbuckler somehow, and then back to superhero? It made no sense as in in-character thing.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Or I could recover the orb to gift to her father for her hand. Or I could recover the orb and save the country and impress her into marrying me. Or... There are lots of ways that could go that don't fracture the story.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>That's simply not true. I can go through that module making each and every decision based on what my PC knows and perceives about the situations at hand. That's sufficient for actor stance and the module will work just fine. I can even mix it up with a princess or whatever like I demonstrated above. While you can fracture a story with something like a princess, you don't have to, and in fact it's quite easy not to.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>They are not in pawn stance. As I pointed out, all you need is knowledge and perception of what is happening right in front of you in order to make an actor stance declaration based on character knowledge and perception. Pawn can't happen without author stance, and you certainly aren't authoring anything in the beginning of that module.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>This idea that you have to have incredible richness in order to achieve actor stance results the achievement of actor stance being a snipe hunt. Nobody can know everything that a PC would know, or know all of his motivations, etc. There will always be something missing, which would prevent a completely accurate(based on all knowledge, motivations, etc. of the PC) declaration. Obviously you don't need to know 100% of everything the PC knows and desires in order to make a decision from actor stance, so we know that making decisions without full knowledge is completely acceptable. Given that, there is no good reason to think that we need "rich" knowledge anymore than we would need 100% knowledge. You can certainly play it that way for your game, but simple knowledge and perception of what is happening around the PC is all that is required for actor stance to be achieved.</em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 7584001, member: 23751"] I understand and I'm saying you are wrong. If I have no background, and nothing else to go off of, and the DM says to me, "There is are light woods ahead of you," that is sufficient for me to achieve actor stance. My character has knowledge of the woods, has perceived the woods, and I can based off those things inform the DM as to what action I take. If I declare that I got into the woods and look for a trail through," that is an actor stance declaration. This "richness" you describe doesn't need to be present. [i][i] This is a bad example. In a story who cares about stance. Stance is irrelevant. In an RPG, if a player is playing Spot, he will determine the motivations and such. Most likely though, the DM is just going to describe to the players that the PCs see a Dog yapping in front of a door." and the PCs can use that knowledge and their perceptions to make an actor stance declaration about what they want to do. Writing a book is not roleplaying, so you are comparing apples and oranges here. We don't need to know his mental state. We only need to know what he knows and perceives about the situation. You are ascribing more to actor stance than is required or included in the Forge's definition. You don't need to extract it. Throngor perceives that the caves exist and knows where they are. His actor stance action declaration in response to that knowledge and perception is to mount a personal assault on the Caves. That's all you need. More richness like motivations and such make things smoother and more enjoyable, but they are not necessary for actor stance to occur. I disagree. The adventuring prince/noble is a trope. My PC could marry the princess and still go off and search for the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth with his buddies in his free time. I also never viewed the titles in the 1e PHB as something the PCs knew about, but were rather for the players' benefit. Level is an out of character concept, and the title structure was silly in the sequence given to us. You're a veteran before you are a swordsman. You go from hero to swashbuckler somehow, and then back to superhero? It made no sense as in in-character thing. Or I could recover the orb to gift to her father for her hand. Or I could recover the orb and save the country and impress her into marrying me. Or... There are lots of ways that could go that don't fracture the story. That's simply not true. I can go through that module making each and every decision based on what my PC knows and perceives about the situations at hand. That's sufficient for actor stance and the module will work just fine. I can even mix it up with a princess or whatever like I demonstrated above. While you can fracture a story with something like a princess, you don't have to, and in fact it's quite easy not to. They are not in pawn stance. As I pointed out, all you need is knowledge and perception of what is happening right in front of you in order to make an actor stance declaration based on character knowledge and perception. Pawn can't happen without author stance, and you certainly aren't authoring anything in the beginning of that module. This idea that you have to have incredible richness in order to achieve actor stance results the achievement of actor stance being a snipe hunt. Nobody can know everything that a PC would know, or know all of his motivations, etc. There will always be something missing, which would prevent a completely accurate(based on all knowledge, motivations, etc. of the PC) declaration. Obviously you don't need to know 100% of everything the PC knows and desires in order to make a decision from actor stance, so we know that making decisions without full knowledge is completely acceptable. Given that, there is no good reason to think that we need "rich" knowledge anymore than we would need 100% knowledge. You can certainly play it that way for your game, but simple knowledge and perception of what is happening around the PC is all that is required for actor stance to be achieved.[/i][/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top