Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 7584136" data-attributes="member: 23751">You are inventing this need for motivations when Actor stances does not have them.  Period.  Here it is for you again, since you keep missing it, "In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have."See?  Not one word about motivation.  Character knowledge and perceptions are the only criteria.  Once again, you are attempting to redefine something to suit your personal argument in order to poo poo on what someone else is doing.  That's not required for actor stance.Sure, but the motivation can be as simple as, "I want to go look at those woods."   When my PC, without any background or any other knowledge was placed in front of those woods, I used his knowledge and perception that the woods existed to make an actor stance decision to go to those woods.  That decision automatically included the motivation of "I want to go look at those woods."  There is no need for this deeper "richness" you keep trying to insert into actor stance. Wow.  Even at the worst roleplaying I took part in, when I was in junior high and didn't know any better, we weren't engaging in that.  No wonder people dismiss Ron Edwards and the Forge so often, if that's what he's claiming happens "most of the time."  But yeah, that's not at all applicable to my game or the descriptions I gave above about actor stance.  Nor does it apply in any way to refute what I am saying about actor stance.  I will refer you to the Forge's actual definition of actor where motivation isn't a part of the definition.  Probably because motivation automatically gets inserted into every decision. Which simply does not apply to anything that I've said on the subject of actor stance.  You are conflating hack n' slash games with a non-hack n' slash game that simply lacks "richness."  No.  In author stance the motivation is the player's, not the characters.  If the motivation is a part of the action declaration and is the PC's, it's actor stance, as 1. motivation is not required for actor stance, and 2. the motivation is the PC's. Basically, to be author stance the motivation has to be the player's AND there is no attempt at all to act based on the PC's knowledge and perceptions.  If you are acting based on the PC's knowledge and perceptions, then it's actor stance, which automatically has an in-character motivation for the act.  Sure.  I didn't do that.  I looked to the woods, because based on m character's knowledge of the situation and perceptions, it was the what he wanted to do.  There was no "wargaming sense" sense.  It was simply an in-character motivation to 1. see the woods, and 2. find safety.  There was no attempt on my part to use a "real person's priorities" to make the decision, so no author stance could happen. For instance, my priority could be to have encounters and gain levels, but the decision my PC made at those woods was to see the woods and find safety.  Those are two different motivations and I only made the decision based on actor stance. The difference is in what motivates the declaration.  If it's the player's desire, it's author, unless you go back and motivate after the fact, then it's pawn.  If it's the PC's knowledge and perceptions, then there is no retroactive motivation going on as the motivation is included WITH the declaration and it's actor stance. So it was a colossal Red Herring.  You're bringing up something that doesn't apply to the discussion at hand as some sort of what, evidence? That was a whole lot of effort to prove nothing about what I said.  Here again is what I said.  I'll bold the important part. "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." You do not have to have that richness to achieve actor stance.  Showing me an example where you achieved it with incredible richness does nothing to disprove what I said.  It only proves that you can also have actor stance with incredible richness. It's easy to achieve simply by making decisions based on character knowledge and perceptions, just as the Forge definition states. Um, no.  Again you're attempting to redefine the term to suite your needs and poo poo on other styles.  Now we have to play the game your way in order to even be able to achieve actor stance?  We must frame scenes around PC motivations in order to achieve it?  Not even close. I'm going to stick with what actor stance really is and leave you to your personal definition that only applies to @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>.</blockquote>

Verification