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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8138959" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sure, no questions, but this doesn't at all illuminate the difference you've asserted.  That different characters exist, and that players choose characters according to the game their player, is fairly trivial.  The choice is unrelated to the method of portrayal.Apologies for the misquote, I trusted my recollection.  I believe my question withstands the correction, though.  In the quote I provided, Actor stance is divorced from the choice of action and is, instead, defined as inhabiting the character and portraying it faithfully with that choice.  IC, on the other hand, is both a decision framework AND the portrayal framework.  And, after the decision is made, I don't see any daylight between doing your best to portray the character with that decision made.  In other words, Actor stance overlays IC stance (again, I find this stance incoherent in conception, but for the sake of argument) indistinguishably, but IC bolts on the decision process as well while Actor stance explicitly doesn't determine how the choice is made.Frankly, after reading the background on this, I think this framework is trying to do to much with the inspiring though experiment of considering the different inputs into a play or movie.  That was the Author, Director, Actor, and Audience.  It's not a great comparison to RPGs (and, to their credit, this is mentioned explicitly in the discussion) but there was an attempt to move these concepts over and refine them.  The piece you're citing as your point is based entirely on this conversation (also linked from the RPGA website) and it's clear there that there's a lot of disagreement even between the originators.  And, I think this is shown in the bolt-on IC and Deep IC stances, which aim to shore up the weaknesses in their Actor stance taking more from the stage, where actors have little choice over their character's choices but still have to emote them.  In RPGs, a player makes those choices and then portrays them.  How this is done doesn't mesh well with a stance defined as unconnected to the decision process.  IC was added to try to accommodate some of this, but really is just a paean to an ideal rather than a functionally usable term or concept to analyze play.</blockquote>

Verification