Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6152155" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree that it is an instance of director stance."Author stance", at least as I use it (from The Forge) refers to choosing actions for one's PC from the point of view of an author - ie "It would be pretty cool for my guy to do this awesome thing" - rather than from the point of view of the character him-/herself. In some playstyles, author stance then involves writing in a rationalising in-character motivation (eg "My guy loves to show off!"). When no such writing in takes place, we have that sub-category of author stance known as "pawn stance". (I think a lot of classic Gygaxian play was/is pawn stance.)Although actor stance and author stance are logically/conceptually distinct, I think that in the reality of play they overlap hugely. Very few players are purely actor stance players, in part because most PCs aren't detailed enough in motivations and the like to answer all questions that come up as to how they would act, and in part because most people accomodate their play to fit within the external constraints and desires of the rest of the play group. And even purists who try to avoid being shaped by those external constraints often have a conception of what they want their PC to be (eg I'm playing a doomed anti-hero) which then shapes their choices from the "outside" in, rather than the "inside" out.Director stance I think is also pretty common - I gave an example upthread, of deciding facts about your PC's birthplace and parentage - but I think is often seen as having to be sharply circumscribed. And I think this is what    [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s example brings out. For instance, in his first example the resolution of the situation doesn't involve the player stipulating backstory beyond that which governs his/her PC and the guard with whom s/he is interacting. It's easy to imagine it being narrated as explanation for a successful Diplomacy, Bluff or perhaps even Thievery check - and although it does change the backstory in an interesting way, it has no further implications for resolution of the ongoing scenario.Whereas the second example changes not only the backstory of the PC and the guard who is the present object of interaction, but also the disposition of all the other guards in the scenario. It goes well beyond action resolution into scene re-framing.I think it is easy for D&D to incorporate examples like the first one (eg require successful skill checks, or the expenditure of Fate Points, or whatever else seems appropriate to ration them). I think it is a significantly bigger deal to incorporate examples like the second one, because you then have to build in a whole apparatus to mange these scene-reframing abilities so that players don't just reframe away all the challenges confronting their PCs.</blockquote>

Verification