Immersion, Stance, and Playstyle Discussion

[fusangite]

I guess part of what I was getting at with my question is the idea of anthropological and philosophical inference. We all, to one degree or another, have a theory of how history and human societies work. This issue is increasingly coming up on the suspension of disbelief thread. When I was asking about how players fill-in aspects of their character's cultural values, I was curious to see how much people deduced about their characters from looking at the rules or setting materials.

For instance, if you end up in a culture in which land and property are primarily or exclusively held by female members, do you tend to automatically assume that the culture's ideas of divorce and sexual morality are going to resemble those of real-world cultures that hold property in this way? Or, if you are playing D&D and using standard item creation and appraise mechanics, are you going to assume that the culture has an objective rather than subjective theory of value? Are you going to extend this into a theory of language and assume that objects have true names too?

The true name thing really hit me taking a Spanish course this year (I haven't studied a foreign language since 1988) -- naming objects was done with a reflexive verb. The literal translation of sentence naming a restaurant is "This restaurant calls itself ______." Similarly, I noted how the use of the subjunctive mood was far more common in Romance rather than Germanic languages and thought to myself, "no wonder Calvinism didn't sell down there given that very structure of the language denies predestination."

While I'm a big fan of asking the GM cultural questions all the time, I don't want to keep peppering him with questions throughout the game so I tend to look for ways to deduce things about a culture based on real-world ideas of how culture and thought operate. Of course, this, itself is problematic because I'm importing a bunch of real-world assumptions about how things work whenever I do this. Or I'm "swallowing whole" systems of thought like Aristotelianism and applying the system in one place in the world because I see part of it in operation in another.

 

[shilsen]

While I'm a big fan of asking the GM cultural questions all the time, I don't want to keep peppering him with questions throughout the game so I tend to look for ways to deduce things about a culture based on real-world ideas of how culture and thought operate. Of course, this, itself is problematic because I'm importing a bunch of real-world assumptions about how things work whenever I do this. Or I'm "swallowing whole" systems of thought like Aristotelianism and applying the system in one place in the world because I see part of it in operation in another.

One more obvious (to me) problem comes to mind - many (most?) DMs don't have an internally consistent worldview functioning in their games, and that's especially true when it comes to a subject such as culture. If one is looking for things like consistent ecomomic systems, sexual mores, theories of language, etc., one is likely to be sadly disappointed. So I tend to rely on answers to my questions more than on deductions I make, simply because the former is much more likely to give me correct information about the DM's working conceptions than the latter.

Of course, this approach means I can be a pain in the ass with regular questions of "Would my character...?" and "If this is so, then...?" about subjects that the DM has not really considered

 

[fusangite]

One more obvious (to me) problem comes to mind - many (most?) DMs don't have an internally consistent worldview functioning in their games, and that's especially true when it comes to a subject such as culture. If one is looking for things like consistent ecomomic systems, sexual mores, theories of language, etc., one is likely to be sadly disappointed.

Or perhaps this is just the socially weird way I'm moving the GM-boundary in terms of setting design by making a strong case about how the would should be. Of course it is also probably true that I tend not to play with GMs whom I can't rely on to produce consistent worlds. Hmmmm...

So I tend to rely on answers to my questions more than on deductions I make,

I do that too, I suppose -- about 66/33.

Anyway, that was kind of the issue I was getting at above. I was curious to know if anyone else used the kinds of supplementary tactics for getting setting and character info that I sometimes use.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Interesting stuff. (And all "on topic" enough for me -- I figure as thread starter I'm just the guy who brought up something to have a conversation about, and anything sparked by that conversation is relevant.)

Just for clarification, the stances I listed come from the book Sorcerer & Sword by Ron Edwards. He uses them mostly to discuss the character-player split in motivations and knowledge. They get used a lot to describe techniques as well, since (for instance) someone who likes Actor stance might like a lot of in-character dialog as well.

I'm pretty "out there" when it comes to setting creation, preferring bottom-up with a ton of player input. For instance, our latest campaign is based on Roger Zelazny's Amber novels. The PCs are Princes and Princesses of Amber, which if you've read the books means that they can leave Amber, start walking, and end up in any world they can imagine. In that situation, the stances get kind of blurred -- the characters themselves have some Director-stance powers. If they want the figure up ahead on the road to be a long-lost friend, or a hated enemy, they can make it so.

What I've been doing so far, since this means that I totally can't prep the majority of NPCs, is having a brief kibbitzing session before a scene gets rolling. The player whose "turn" it is starts describing the scene, the NPCs, etc., and as we get inspiration we all chime in with ideas. I'll play the NPCs in a third-person narration way for a while until I see where the player wants the conversation to go, then I add detail and start speaking more in IC dialog until we're in a full conversation.

It's been interesting to mix styles like that, and I admit it's one of the things that was in my head when I posted the thread. Sometimes it's a little like a scene in a play where the actor's on the phone -- nobody's playing the part on the other end, so the actor lets the audience know what both sides of the conversation are like through their own dialog. You can "author" a bit while remaining in character. We've only had one session ilke this, so we'll see how it changes over time, but it's been an interesting experiment.

It's been really interesting in terms of the question "How do players come to understand the nature of the world they're in?" because they're largely creating it. Some players have come up with all sorts of information about their home Shadow (the particular world they live in), and expect me as GM to flesh it out and present it to them. Others are so vague that we haven't seen more than a few rooms, but the little details they've presented in character give us a tantalizing hint.

However they do it, if there's some thematic bit they want to be important, it's become clear right away. And what's really interesting is it's made me realize I do this kind of thing all the time, and others might as well. If Bob's dwarf acts a certain way, that doesn't tell us everything about what dwarves are like in this world, or what his clan is like, but darn if it doesn't imply a lot, just through his characterization. And in the past I've used those cues a lot to shape what, say, his dwarf clan is like when we finally meet them. You folks ever experienced something similar?

 

[fusangite]

First off, you raise a good point about Amber. It is the ideal setting for blurring these lines. Really, it is more meta-setting attached to a couple of fixed places than a setting in the traditional sense. I'm generally not a fan of the kind of play you are into but, because I'm such a physics/setting oriented guy, I would be completely comfortable with your playstyle when it comes to something like Amber.

As to your question, as a GM, I absolutely do use player-generated aspects of characters to extrapolate details of the culture that I have not covered. One D&D campaign I ran, I generated a singularly uninspired setting for (I was basically just trying to use a short campaign to teach myself the rules) I actually relied on this pretty heavily. One non-drinking player made a serious gaffe in the first episode by trying to light some beer on fire; so, naturally when people went to his town, they found all the beer was flamable. And, of course, a society whose main beverage is flamable is going to have certain other characteristics...

That's, of course, just a trivial example but it was a principle I frequently applied in the campaign. The paladin was gay -- so, naturally, all paladins were gay. If you had a boy and he didn't seem to be very interested in girls, as a parent, you would get him into some martial training and see if he could apply to join the order of paladins. By midway in the campaign, the term "paladin" had begung to be used euphemistically by the players.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Well, I brought this question up with some of my players. Mostly, they thought the entire topic was silly. One of my friends thought the concept of getting so into character that it took a "cool down" period to start thinking like yourself again was so absurd that anyone who suggested they did it was insane (his words, I'm not trying to flame anyone).

He said that part of what makes someone sane is their ability to tell the difference between reality and your character, a seperation.

I partially agree. I feel that although you think "what would my character do?" you also think "what do *I* want?" and "what would be the most fun?" and combine all of these ideas into your decisions for your character.

I know, that I, personally, cannot stay in character for long periods of time. A couple of minutes at a time is the best I can do before I think of something I really want to say that is out of character and just have to tell everyone before I forget. Or I'll break up laughing when someone says something that OOCly sounds funny.

I find I have to be way too serious if I stay in character all the time. My character is fighting life or death battles against evil for the fate of the world. I'm playing a game with some friends in my garage. We're here to have fun, but in order to properly "role play" my character, I'd have to put myself into the mindset of someone who has likely resigned themselves to the possibility of them dying at any moment and who knows that a single mistake could doom everyone in the world.

So, in order to bridge the gap between those, I normally distance myself from my characters enough that I KNOW what their motivations are, but I don't think about them constantly. If the DM asks what I do, I say "I run directly at the enemy and attack". My character does it because he is a hero and knows what is at risk. I do it because it's fun to fight enemies and win. My character uses tactics and optimal spell and magic item usage because he lives in a world where not doing so means not only his own life by those of his companions as well. I do it because I don't want to roll up a new character.

I could roll up a character who hid at the back and was afraid to get anywhere near a combat, but then I, as a player, wouldn't be having any fun. So, my characters tend to be modelled after my own gaming tastes. In a way, they are all partially me to avoid the disconnect between me and them. We both want the same thing.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting stuff. (And all "on topic" enough for me -- I figure as thread starter I'm just the guy who brought up something to have a conversation about, and anything sparked by that conversation is relevant.)

Thank you! I have pretty much given up on ever posting in certain posters' threads, since I know the minute that people disagree with him he'll ask the mods to close the thread. (What's the point of sparking a discussion if you don't want to discuss things??)

 

[fusangite]

Well, I brought this question up with some of my players. Mostly, they thought the entire topic was silly. One of my friends thought the concept of getting so into character that it took a "cool down" period to start thinking like yourself again was so absurd that anyone who suggested they did it was insane (his words, I'm not trying to flame anyone).

Okay. I realize I forgot to say this in another thread where the issue was raised but, yes, I'd be happy to go for a beer with you at Gencon.

 

[SBMC]

Hi all,

mythusmage started a very interesting thread here about immersion and the various ways people portray their characters.

He's stated that he'd like his thread to work more as a poll, and not discuss the relative merits of immersive versus non-immersive play, so out of respect for his wishes I've started this thread. Hopefully we can expand on the topic while allowing him to keep his thread on his original topic.

I'd like to lead off with a key distinction I make between 'immersion' and 'stance'. Here's how I view it:

Immersion: The extent to which a player identifies with and attempts to portray or become their character. (This is very vague; feel free to offer a better definition)

Stance: A technique a player uses to portray their character. For example, character as "game piece to be manipulated", "role to be played", or "character to be authored".

I think the two are often connected, but not necessarily. For example, it's possible to not identify with your character at all, but still interact with the group with first-person descriptions. On the other end, you might identify strongly with your character, but describe their actions in the third person.

I welcome any and all opinions, including personal preferences, relative merits and pitfalls of different approaches to immersion and stance, etc.

------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to expand on Stance a bit more, since I think lumping it in with immersion complicates things. (I think Immersion is "internal" and Stance is "external", for instance.)

Here are some possible types of stance, which I'm taking from the roleplaying supplement Sorcerer & Sword (because I've got a copy next to me at the moment). I'm not glued to these definitions, but they're a place to start.

Note that these don't necessarily address third-person versus first-person phrasing. They often have a particular kind of phrasing associated with them, though.

Pawn Stance: The player decides the character's actions based on the player's priorities. OOC knowlege is not kept separate from IC knowledge. Sometimes this means that a character's behavior is erratic, like a paladin slaughtering an innocent person to get the last few XP to level. On the other hand, if you're playing a character very much like yourself, this stance might be very useful and plausible.

I think this is what mythusmage is referring to in the other thread as "treat the character as a game piece to be manipulated".

Actor Stance: The player decides the character's actions based on the character's imagined priorities. The character's priorities and motivations include only that knowledge gained IC. Actor stance is usually associated with a high level of immersion, because like immersion, there's a strong sense of "thinking as if you are the character".

I think mythusmage was referring to this as treating your character "as a role to be played".

Author Stance: This starts off like Pawn Stance, in that the character's actions are based on the player's motivations. However, there is an additional step where the player "authors in" retroactive motivation for the character to act in the way they did. (So the character's doing what the player wants, but there's an effort made to keep this plausible.) OOC knowledge is used to direct IC behavior, often in a nonintrusive fashion to set up future interesting scenes and conflicts. (Example: In a horror game, I have my PC go into the basement, and come up with a reason why he would do so, because I think it'll be more interesting if he confronts the monster and has to run from it.)

Professor Phobos described this stance as "acting as if you are the character's head writer, for, say, a TV show".

There's also Director stance, where the player can exert control over things outside of their character, but we can leave that off to the side for now, since it's most often used by GMs. (It does come up sometimes in D&D, for instance when the player directs the behavior of their hirelings or cohorts.)

So, help me out folks. Does this rough breakdown of Stances reflect behavior you've seen in games? Does the divide between Pawn and Author stance make sense? What are the good and bad points you see in the use of the various stances?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that perhaps things are a bit mixed up here. You see, I think there are really two portions to this. One is Character Creation and the other is Playing the Character. I really don' think this question can be answered in a simple manner:

Character Creation:
I think most folks, including myself go through a process. We all start out with either the "Pawn Stance" or the Author Stance. Typically however we all know what character class(s) we wish to play and that in and of itself forms a portion of both of these stances by default.

Character Creation - Pawn Stance Precedent:
We create a character we want to play; attempting to maximize exactly what it is we want out of that character. Noting that that could mean we want to play a wizard with an 18 Strength and 11 intelligence or a more standard Wizard with an 18 Intelligence and 8 Strength.

The Pawn Stance includes everything you put down on your character sheet. The next step - the start of the Author Stance is the biography and background of the character - Noting here that the Pawn Stance is the foundation of the Author Stance. We justify the Character Sheet by writing the biography and background to it.

Character Creation - Author Stance Precedent:
In this case we write the biography and background of the character then move forward to the Pawn Stance where we build the character directly around that Author Stance - Noting here that the Author Stance is the foundation of the Pawn Stance. We justify much of the biography and background by what we put on our character sheet.

Character Creation - Mixed Precedent:
Here we create portion of the biography and background and a portion of the actual character sheet (Pawn Stance) as well. Many times we justify what is on the character sheet by adding to or modifying the biography and background of the character and vice versa. I would think this is by far the most used method of character creation.

NOTE: Of course there are those things that we may never actually "justify" outright; such as why the PC is such a good climber (with max Climb skill ranks). But we would most likely see why it is the Wizard specialized in Evocation or the Ranger is best with a Bow, or the Fighter is also an able diplomat.

Playing the Character
Here is where I think your original question comes to mind - however it can be answered at least in part by how the character was created; as that points to the tendencies (at least with this particular character) of the player.

However I would think few people ever actually partake in the full blown "Actor Stance", at least in the first few levels as the real nature of the character unfolds. Here the "Author Stance" would still hold as modifications, be them written or not, are made by the player for a variety of reasons (lets call these "roleplaying elements").

The reasons could be after playing it out; they don't like a particular roleplaying element of the character, the roleplaying element causes friction in the group (IC and/or OOC) that is unwelcome, you discover that the roleplaying element actually does not fit, even though you like it. There are probably others as well…

Then, after the first few levels, a player moves into the Pawn, Author or Actor Stance. However even here there is room for discussion. When leveling for example one would tend to again go back to the Character Creation mode when choosing feats and skills or even adding additional classes to the character. The Actor Stance is of no use here. However the rest of the time there would most likely be a mix of Author/Actor. Where the Player Author's something then Acts it out. Such as if you decide to charge that Ogre out of the blue; your authoring; ya want to get the battle going! The Actor - Your character is a bit reckless and foolhardy.

The immersion potion is so intangible that it is really not measurable in any meaningful way except by those at the same gaming table as compared to the environment the game is played in. Perhaps everyone comes in dressed up in costumes and perhaps they all come after work in their business suits…

IMO a pure Pawn Stance would appear to me to be pure powegaming/muchkinizing better suited for wargaming or miniatures.

SBMC

 

[fusangite]

SBMC, I think you are correct in stating that the stances only become fully operational after the character has been created. However, the stance one anticipates adopting once the creation process is complete does affect the kinds of decisions made during that process. These kinds of decisions might affect how immediately one could adopt a particular stance and might wholly disqualify certain stances. Still, I'm happy to accept the argument with the above corollary.

However I would think few people ever actually partake in the full blown "Actor Stance", at least in the first few levels as the real nature of the character unfolds.

I'm very attracted to the phrasing here in that it emphasizes an important aspect of my experience of play: discovery. Stance, as a concept, while illuminating much in this discourse, obscures other things by implying an exclusive or overwhelming conscious agency on the part of the player in defining the character. The idea that the "real nature" of a character cannot be imposed by player fiat at the beginning of play but most, to a greater or lesser degree, be discovered is an important one.

Unfortunately, SBMC, because you are making many of the points entailed by this realization using the language of stance, some of your writing here comes off as a little incoherent. You are using the vocabulary offered by Sweeney to talk about some things it is not designed to discuss.

You are correct in observing that most people change stances over the course of play but I think you may be going a bit far in positing a particular progression of stances as universal or even common.