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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7584408" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7584408, member: 16814"] 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. [/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