Yes, they're terms that have been used extensively on the Forge!  Ooooh!  SCARY!  Basically, these are different ways that people choose to put stuff into the fiction of the story:

   Actor:  Doing what you believe your character would do, whether it makes the game fun for you or not.

Author:  Doing what makes the game fun for you, whether it's what you believe your character would do or not.

Director:  Describing stuff that is not through the agency of your character ("So I grab a bottle off of the bar" when you're just now narrating that the bar has bottles ... plausible, but still new narration)

You can definitely draw different borders between things people do, obviously.  Personally, I think there's a distinction between describing stuff not through the agency of your character because you think it would happen ("So we've taken out three support pillars?  Well, obviously, pieces of concrete start falling from the ceiling!") and describing such things because you think it'd be fun ("Oh, when we break the wall open there should totally be rats just pouring out of it ... that'd be so GROSS!")  But I think the three categories above are useful for getting people talking and thinking about what they're doing.

What about you?  They sound good to you?  Or stupid?  Or ... what?

whether it makes the game fun for you or not

To me, this seems like you're doing what you think you're "supposed to do" in the game -- in effect you're trying to "win" by playing the game "properly" to create a good / realistic / entertaining narrative.  This should be making the game fun for you, even if it's "hurting" your character.

It cuts across actor/author/director/(whatever) stances...

As a player I do all three.  What term is there for that?  This is a problem I have with a lot of the Forge 'classifications' they try to narrow things down way to much or into sections that aren't logical.  GNS theory is the biggest of these.  Everytime I've explained it to people they simply say that a little bit of all three work for them.  So then it appears to be making jargon for the sake of making jargon.

My two cents.

Quote from: peteramthorAs a player I do all three.  What term is there for that?

Uh ... "doing all three."

They're descriptions of what you're doing in a particular moment, not some sort of labels in a game of identity politics.  It's like making a "screwdriver / hammer / duct-type" division in home-repair tasks ... it's sensible to talk about when you use one tool and when you use another, but you wouldn't expect people to affiliate with one tool to the exclusion of all others ... well, yeah, duct tape, but that's just a failure of my analogy

"I'm an Author-type player!" is nonsense.

"I was confronted with a situation where the Actor-type response and the Author-type response were clearly different ... interesting choice to be made there!" is more workable.

Quote from: StuartTo me, this seems like you're doing what you think you're "supposed to do" in the game -- in effect you're trying to "win" by playing the game "properly" to create a good / realistic / entertaining narrative.  This should be making the game fun for you, even if it's "hurting" your character.

Uh ... what? :confused:

I think your phrasing is a little odd, but yes.

What happened to good old literary techniques?
Why invent the wheel a second time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viewpoint_Scope_%28literature%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_view_%28literature%29


I prefer "third person limited omniscient".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscient_narrator


Really, "stances" are for people who either don´t know better, or who like to invent new jargon.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat about you?  They sound good to you?  Or stupid?  Or ... what?

No, not stupid. I use them in my gaming. It's something I think most roleplayers do so. So I guess we're all aware of them from the moment we start gaming but I started really thinking and maximizing the different stances in my sessions 10 years ago, with Maelstrom/Story Engine, although it doesn't use that exact language.

I think stances (or whatever people want to call them) are one of the most powerful tools you can use in roleplaying. They have a big effect on our sessions.

Quote from: SettembriniReally, "stances" are for people who either don´t know better, or who like to invent new jargon.

They're not all that new.

Well 200x AD is new.
Compared to two thousand years of literary studies.

Quote from: SettembriniWell 200x AD is new.
Compared to two thousand years of literary studies.

198X, but yes.

*Shrug*

They are the "whatever person" things, just specific to gaming.  As such terms go, they meet my criteria of useful:

1. I can see them in play, and reproduce them reliably.

2. They're shorter form than the 'standard terms'.

3. They sound like what they are, and don't sound dumb.

4. Sometimes, one is more useful to a given moment of play than another.

In order seriously to think about roleplaying, at some time terms will be needed that are different from literary ones. A game is not a book. For instance, one does not take up an author stance while reading a novel.

This stuff goes back beyond the Forge. If you don't like the terms, you may be out of luck. But do you accept that talking about roleplaying will need, eventually, a critical language of its own?

Quote from: SettembriniWhat happened to good old literary techniques?
Why invent the wheel a second time?

Does the point-of-view or voice of narration have anything to do with stance?

If I'm playing Brog the Barbarian, I can describe his actions as "Brog kills the orc" or "I kill the orc," and that's voice of narration.  That changes how I express something, but not what the in-fiction thing happening is.  

If I'm killing the orc because that's what Brog would do (whether it makes the story fun or not) then it doesn't really matter whether I describe it in first, second or third person narration, does it?  The difference between the stances isn't about how I narrate what happens, but about what actually happens, and why.

I don't see much conceptual intersection between stance (as described) and narrative point of view (as linked).  Is there a connection that I'm missing?  If so, can you be more clear about what it is?

Quote from: droogBut do you accept that talking about roleplaying will need, eventually, a critical language of its own?

Nope.

I got through a history and english degree without having to use any jargon at all. I always wrote in such a way that a person utterly ignorant of the field could read my essays and understand them. They might not be interested in them, but they could understand them - without a glossary.

Plain English is amazingly versatile and expressive, if you make the effort to use it well.

Well, that's as may be, but Settembrini's point is that we can simply adopt the language of lit-crit. I don't think so. There are things that happen in an RPG that are completely different from other forms.