Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6868591" data-attributes="member: 42582">And now I get to strike back at you for ninja-ing me with your dissociated-mechanics-fu!I think that you are underselling what counts as "inhabiting" or being "in" your character.Many times in the past I have insisted that the stances ("actor", "author", "director") are logical modes of play, not psychological states of the player.So, I can play in actor stance but not actually inhabit or be in my character: for instance, I read the PC's backstory, think a bit about the current in-game situation, and then declare an appropriate action. I think this is more-or-less how  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] wants me to play 5 INT. It doesn't require any actual inhabitation at all.I can play in author stance while inhabiting my character: caught up in the rush of the game, I declare "Yeah, I charge in too! Inspired by my allies courage, I throw caution to the wind!" I've first decided, as a player, that my PC joins the rest in the charge. Then I narrate an in-character reason for that. And in psychological terms I may never have breached the barrier between in-character and out-of-character. (I actually think this is a pretty common sort of occurence in RPGing. At least, I reckon that I've seen it a lot.)And then I can play in director stance while inhabiting my character. That was the point of my paladin example, back in the day. The exchange went:Paladin: I'll defeat you with the might of the Raven Queen. NPC Hexer: I'm not afraid of you or your god - I turned you into a frog. Paladin: And she turned me back.That's director stance - the player narrates the mechanic of the effect ending as an action of another character (his PC's god). (And it wasn't a successful save - which, since Gygax's DMG, has allowed for this sort of director stance narration - it was the ending of a "lasts til end of the Hexer's next turn" effect - even more guaranteed to drive the process-sim crowd bonkers!)But it didn't disturb "inhabitation" one bit. It actually enhanced it, by affirming the devotion of the PC and the intimacy of connection to the god. (Compare to the player stopping to ask me "Does the ending of that effect correlate to my god freeing me?" You could then get actor stance play, but completely devoid of any inhabitation, in my view.)The reason that I have often come back to this example is because I think the religious character is actually the clearest counter-example to the casual equation of actor stance and process-sim with immersion/inhabitation. The religious person knows that the world unfolds through divine providence. But the player knows that the game unfolds through the cruel whims of dice. If the player isn't allowed to play his/her PC in director stance, and if all that is permitted is actor stance arising out of process-sim interpretations of mechanics, then the religious character is rendered necessarily irrational, mistaking the cold and brutal randomness of life for the workings of providence. (Treating the dice in a process-sim way is therefore perhaps a good thing for a Conan-esque game, or even a Greek Gods game where the gods are cruel and arbitrary, but not a Tolkien-esque one, in which the classic cleric and paladin have their home.)The same objections that have been stated above ("But what if the player . . .") arise here too: But what if the player narrates that his character's god frees him from prison? But what if there are two PCs in the party who worship different gods, and who are opposed to one another? All I can say is that, in actual play this is not a problem but rather the stuff that drives the game forward.For instance, in my 4e game who has the benefit of providence - the characters who are for the Raven Queen, or the one or two who are against her? Well, so far the PCs have <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468466-Session-report-Victory-over-Orcus-escape-from-the-Abyss" target="_blank">killed her number one enemy (Orcus)</a>, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?353496-First-time-godslayers-PCs-kill-Torog" target="_blank">killed Torog so as to give her access to the Underdark souls that were previously denied her</a>, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?366933-Grugnur-died-prone-in-a-pile-of-his-own-swordthanes!" target="_blank">brought the Winter Fey into her fold</a>, and prevented her name from being revealed twice (once by defeating the Star Spawn who tried to reveal it after <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340383-PCs-kill-Ometh-leading-to-open-season-on-the-Raven-Queen-s-name" target="_blank">the PCs undermined her earlier pact with the stars to keep it secret</a>, and more recently by <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?480707-Session-report-PCs-defeat-Kas-but-cede-the-battlefield-to-Osterneth" target="_blank">making sure that they can protect her mortal body in her mausoleum from being taken by Vecna-ites</a>).So I think actual play is answering that question!, with no need for me, as GM, to unilaterally assert authority over the relevant backstory (and thereby forcing the players back into actor stance). To my mind, that's inhabitation.</blockquote>

Verification