Quote from: TonyLBUh ... what? :confused:

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

I'm saying that whatever point of view you use to describe the action:

I don't pick up the sword.  It's magic and I'm afraid of that!
Thrag is afraid of magic, so he doesn't pick up the sword.
Thrag sees an omen in the gathering clouds and knows he shouldn't pick up the sword.

-- you could be doing something that's good for your character (eg. take the +1 sword) or bad for your character (eg. not taking the sword) but what you think is the right way to play the game.  

I think any action a player chooses to make in an RPG is about making the game "fun" for them.  If you choose a course of action that you think would be: more realistic / better narrative / more in character -- that's about trying to play the game the best way possible (as you understand it) and about making the game more fun for you.

I agree that there's no need for new jargon, and better to step back and consider whether things like "whether it makes the game fun for you or not" is really linked to speaking in the first person vs. third person.

Quote from: TonyLBIf 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.

If you choose to have Brog kill the orc it's because you think that's how you're supposed to play the game, and playing the game well is fun for you.

If killing the orc is in no way fun for you, you won't choose to have Brog take that action.

I'd like to see you tell that to John Snead.

Quote from: droogI'd like to see you tell that to John Snead.

I wouldn't have a problem doing that, myself.

No point, though.  He'd tell you that being Brog is the source of his fun.

He'd probably use a different word than "fun", but whatever.

And yet, it seems that there's an attempt to "borrow" terms.  "Director" stance? "Author" stance?

So if RPG's need a critical language that's all it's own, why is there an attempt to use terms from others - they do carry baggage after all.  Tony describes Director as:

Quote from: TonyLBDescribing 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)

And yet "Director" to most people not studied in some film-maker background think of a director as the person who decides how the story of a movie will be told.

So, to Sett's point, if you're going to use a critical language, why not use one that's been around a long time and is taught in most english/language arts classes. It's also important to stick with the meanings of terms as they are commonly understood.

The alternative is to take a term like Director, which carries a certain lay meaning, and describe it differently from that meaning.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNo point, though.  He'd tell you that being Brog is the source of his fun.

Yes, so he would be making decisions in the reverse order, one presumes.

1. I am Brog. Brog would kill this orc.
2. Hey, that was fun.

rather than

1. It's fun to kill orcs.
2. Brog will kill this orc.

Quote from: droogYes, so he would be making decisions in the reverse order, one presumes.

Not necessarily...

0. I know my fun comes from character.  I will play the character.

Quote from: droog1. I am Brog. Brog would kill this orc.
2. Hey, that was fun.

0. I know my fun comes from action!  I will take action!

Quote from: droog1. It's fun to kill orcs.
2. Brog will kill this orc.

Quote from: droogYes, so he would be making decisions in the reverse order, one presumes.

1. I am Brog. Brog would kill this orc.
2. Hey, that was fun.

rather than

1. It's fun to kill orcs.
2. Brog will kill this orc.

In essence, the difference is that the orc is killed because the player likes to kill orcs, or the player likes to play a character who, in this case, likes to kill orcs - yes?

I dunno. Ask him.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, to Sett's point, if you're going to use a critical language, why not use one that's been around a long time and is taught in most english/language arts classes.

English and language (and cinematography and art) classes focus almost exclusively on the creation process as it involves one single author.  There is no question of "What parts of the fiction does this author create, and what parts does he leave to others?" because the author creates all of it.  The questions are more along the lines of "How does the author convey the fiction?"

So when I point out that Sett's question (roughly "Why not just use terms like 'first person limited' and 'third person omniscient'?") is talking about how the author conveys the fiction, rather than what parts he creates, I'm not just quibbling.  I am pointing out that the education most people have received does not provide terms for talking about this stuff.  They haven't examined this type of creativity, and so they haven't asked these questions.  Maybe improv theater troupes have, but english teachers certainly have not.

Quote from: droogI dunno. Ask him.

Well, you made the distinction, so I thought I'd ask if I had the distinction correct, not if you correctly illustrated Mr. Snead.

Now, do you want to talk, or be smooth?

Quote from: TonyLBEnglish and language (and cinematography and art) classes focus almost exclusively on the creation process as it involves one single author.  There is no question of "What parts of the fiction does this author create, and what parts does he leave to others?" because the author creates all of it.  The questions are more along the lines of "How does the author convey the fiction?"

So when I point out that Sett's question (roughly "Why not just use terms like 'first person limited' and 'third person omniscient'?") is talking about how the author conveys the fiction, rather than what parts he creates, I'm not just quibbling.  I am pointing out that the education most people have received does not provide terms for talking about this stuff.  They haven't examined this type of creativity, and so they haven't asked these questions.  Maybe improv theater troupes have, but english teachers certainly have not.

A) OK, but I am sort of aware that there's a whole field of research into shared authorship, isn't there?
B) Is this to say that the main thrust of Forge theory is about who gets to tell the story, the authorship? (EDIT: doesn't this assume that the issue of shared authorship is taken for granted, so you've moved beyond a single author?)
C) Doesn't part of determining how people play involve how people tell stories, ie how authors convey fiction? Particularly if you are focusing on Story games (as opposed to those games that focus less on story)?

Quote from: James J SkachWell, you made the distinction, so I thought I'd ask if I had the distinction correct, not if you correctly illustrated Mr. Snead.

Now, do you want to talk, or be smooth?

Do you want to talk, or catch me out on stuff? Do you want to throw my words to somebody else in my face? That's kind of rude, considering we've been chatting for some time now.

This is another case of you guys being behind. Stance is one of those things that was discussed for some time and had its useful portion absorbed. Now people have moved on. Hardly anybody mentions stance any more.

Quote from: droogDo you want to talk, or catch me out on stuff? Do you want to throw my words to somebody else in my face? That's kind of rude, considering we've been chatting for some time now.

This is another case of you guys being behind. Stance is one of those things that was discussed for some time and had its useful portion absorbed. Now people have moved on. Hardly anybody mentions stance any more.

I'm sorry.  You're "I don't know ask him" seemed kind of rude to me, so yeah, I used your own words that I took as you trying to tell someone else he was rude. figured it would convey the idea to you without having to say "that was rude." Alas, I was not successful.

And of course, Tony brought up Stance...right here..in this thread..a little less than 16 hours ago.  So please, limit your "you guys" to Tony.

Edit: and just to be clear, I wasn't trying to "catch you out" on anything.  I was sincerely asking about the distinction you were making as it seemed interesting and pertinent to the discussion.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm sorry.  You're "I don't know ask him" seemed kind of rude to me, so yeah, I used your own words that I took as you trying to tell someone else he was rude. figured it would convey the idea to you without having to say "that was rude." Alas, I was not successful.

And of course, Tony brought up Stance...right here..in this thread..a little less than 16 hours ago.  So please, limit your "you guys" to Tony.

Edit: and just to be clear, I wasn't trying to "catch you out" on anything.  I was sincerely asking about the distinction you were making as it seemed interesting and pertinent to the discussion.

Okay, no problem. Sorry for being grumpy. I really don't know. I raised the possibility and realised I was getting into discussing somebody else's agenda, at which point I figured I'd better quit that line of thinking. Also, the kids had just woken me up by shouting in my ear.

Yes, Tony brought up stance and I don't know why that is either. I'd guess that he wants to examine something and he feels it would be a useful building block.

Going back to your question:

QuoteIn essence, the difference is that the orc is killed because the player likes to kill orcs, or the player likes to play a character who, in this case, likes to kill orcs - yes?

I guess so. I think there has been significant doubt cast on whether these stances are actually divided in practice (eg are you, in all cases, processing through author stance?) Stuart may have a point.