D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

"Trad" RPGing is replete with author stance play - the players know the GM has placed obstacles and opportunities into the fiction, and so motivate their PCs to look for them;

On this, I agree. It's possible to winnow some of this out, but maybe not always desirable.

know that there are certain expectations around attrition etc, and so make decisions about resource expenditure keeping those things in mind; etc.

That's not author, it's actor; as it's simply what the characters - knowing they have limited resources - would do.

The exception, of course and as always, being hit points.

 

[Lanefan]

As a Railroad Tycoon, how does this even fit under railroading? Forcing the game along a very narrow and specific story plot = Railroading. To toss a player out of a game and then make their PC and NPC has nothing to do with "railroading". So why attach the two?

Side note: IMO a player's character belongs to that player even if said player is no longer in the game.

I do see the problem here: all the players want to be DMs.

It's more that in some of the examples we've beenn given, all the players are expected to be co-DMs whether they want to or not.

 

[Lanefan]

Incorrect.

How so?

An actor doesn't get to describe the stage set (or, these days, program what later goes on the green screen they're acting in front of). An author does.

Same is true of other people in the setting. An author gets to describe them. An actor only gets to interact with them.

 

[AlViking]

How so?

An actor doesn't get to describe the stage set (or, these days, program what later goes on the green screen they're acting in front of). An author does.

Same is true of other people in the setting. An author gets to describe them. An actor only gets to interact with them.

They're talking game theory lingo that everyone is just supposed to know. Anyway from What is Stance Theory? Part1


Actor Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have. This stance does not necessarily include identifying with the character and feeling what he or she "feels," nor does it require in-character dialogue.

Author Stance: The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character’s knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

Pawn Stance: A subset of Author Stance which lacks the retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions.

 

[The Firebird]

Incorrect.

I agree with you based on the traditional definitions of 'actor' and 'author' but I think this discussion is revealing a real weakness of these definitions. By describing what my character sees, I am authoring new fiction in a way that describing only my character's actions does not.

That is, the first issue is (i) whether you are basing decisions and actions on your goals as player or only the character's goals. The first is traditional 'author' stance, the second 'actor'.

But there is also whether you are allowed to (ii) author the character's perceptions, or other aspects of the world, or not.

The use of 'author' in both cases makes the definitions quite messy.

Might I propose: rename the original stances to 'player' and 'character' stance. Then we have:

a) player stance with authorship: defining a big city in the world because you want a city adventure
b) character stance with authorship: pemerton's runes
c) player stance without authorship: a trad game where you go back to a dangerous area instead of leaving so you don't have to end the game early
d) character stance without authorship: as (c) but your character returns there because they want the treasure held there

 

[bloodtide]

Side note: IMO a player's character belongs to that player even if said player is no longer in the game.

Sure, if you want to say that. Of course, I DM can make an NPC that is exactly like the PC in every way.

I use recreations of PCs all the time as "guest stars", and even as clones, copies, time travelers and such.

It's more that in some of the examples we've beenn given, all the players are expected to be co-DMs whether they want to or not.

This is true. A lot of DMs want to share the power, responsibility and work among the players. This puts the DM off the hook for anything that happens in the game as they can blame the player-dms and it is a lot less work.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As a Railroad Tycoon, how does this even fit under railroading? Forcing the game along a very narrow and specific story plot = Railroading. To toss a player out of a game and then make their PC and NPC has nothing to do with "railroading". So why attach the two?

They’re both examples of GM authority going further than the players would want. In the case of railroading, it’s possible some players may be for it, but generally speaking, it’s considered a negative.

When I see people talk about how much authority the GM has and they provide examples, I generally look at that as a warning sign.

I do see the problem here: all the players want to be DMs.

Nah, in most cases, I’m the GM, so the kind of stuff I’m talking about is from my perspective as both a GM and a player.

 

[bloodtide]

They’re both examples of GM authority going further than the players would want.

Except nearly anything a DM does falls under this vague umbrella.

In the case of railroading, it’s possible some players may be for it, but generally speaking, it’s considered a negative.

I agree it is considered negative. Though it is mostly all peer pressure. A couple people don't like something, so "everyone" dislikes it too....it is how social groups work.

Nah, in most cases, I’m the GM, so the kind of stuff I’m talking about is from my perspective as both a GM and a player.

And you game with players that want to co-dm or with people you will require to co-dm with you, correct?. Either way it is a co-dm game.

 

[Hussar]

Because it's apropos:

 

[hawkeyefan]

Except nearly anything a DM does falls under this vague umbrella.

No, not at all. Most of what a GM does falls under the umbrella of “acceptable GM authority”.

I agree it is considered negative. Though it is mostly all peer pressure. A couple people don't like something, so "everyone" dislikes it too....it is how social groups work.

No, I think that generally, players want their input to matter to play. To different degrees, of course, but still overall they want to influence play and not just play a part in the GM’s story,

And you game with players that want to co-dm or with people you will require to co-dm with you, correct?. Either way it is a co-dm game.

I think your understanding of games other than D&D is limited to the point where I’m not even really sure what you’re saying. But I play and tun a variety of games, with different levels of GM authority.