Quote from: droogI 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.

Herein lies the issue that I thought was interesting.

I think in practice, these things are likely not to cause conflict (regardless of the stance) because the play will combine nicely.  That is, Joe will choose a character that fulfills his goals of killing orcs, and Jane will kill orcs because that's what the character she chose would do.  In practice, the two will achieve different goals through the same act.

I think conflict will only occur is Jane picks a character who will not just kill orcs.  This happens in D&D, particularly the Living Greyhawk campaign, because someone chooses to play a character, say a paladin, that will not automatically kill the orc.  Hell, there are entire regions in Greyhawk that don't allow murder or the PC's end up in jail!

So while often in practice these two may seem the same, in reality, they are very different approaches.

Quote from: James J SkachA) OK, but I am sort of aware that there's a whole field of research into shared authorship, isn't there?

That would be interesting.  I hadn't heard about that, but now I'll go do some research ... but even so, if it's all terminology that don't know before researching it then the argument that we should use it because it's the terminology that everyone knows is much weaker, yes?

Quote from: James J SkachB) Is this to say that the main thrust of Forge theory is about who gets to tell the story, the authorship?

No ... it is to say that the main thrust of this particular term is about what parts of the story you're telling.  Since this is one piece of many in Forge theory, looking at this alone doesn't (to my mind) give us enough evidence to make any arguments one way or t'other about what the main thrust of the whole theory is.

Quote from: James J SkachC) 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)?

Absolutely.  But these terms aren't talking about that thing.

Quote from: James J SkachI think in practice, these things are likely not to cause conflict (regardless of the stance) because the play will combine nicely.  That is, Joe will choose a character that fulfills his goals of killing orcs, and Jane will kill orcs because that's what the character she chose would do.  In practice, the two will achieve different goals through the same act.

Damn fine point!  I agree.  While there are situations in which the distinction is clear (and the terms can help people understand that clear distinction) there are also plenty of situations in which actor and author mode are the same thing.

Now that may be my "fun" phrasing.  As Levi points out, it's a bit rough-and-ready.  If you divided it more specifically so that Author mode was, for instance, "fitting the motivations of the character to the action you want to take" then the distinction might be clearer in some cases.  But I suspect that, even so, you'd find plenty of situations in which you're changing the motivations of the character both because the new (refined) character works better with the direction you want to take and because the new (refined) character is the natural outgrowth of the character as it existed previously.

Interesting!

Quote from: TonyLBNow that may be my "fun" phrasing.  As Levi points out, it's a bit rough-and-ready.  If you divided it more specifically so that Author mode was, for instance, "fitting the motivations of the character to the action you want to take" then the distinction might be clearer in some cases.  But I suspect that, even so, you'd find plenty of situations in which you're changing the motivations of the character both because the new (refined) character works better with the direction you want to take and because the new (refined) character is the natural outgrowth of the character as it existed previously.

Only to be complicated by the new direction angle.  In theory, the same idea applies.  Is the character going in a new direction because the player wants to take him there, or is the character going in a new direction based on how the player thinks she sees the character going on her own.  If that makes any sense...

Quote from: James J SkachOnly to be complicated by the new direction angle.  In theory, the same idea applies.  Is the character going in a new direction because the player wants to take him there, or is the character going in a new direction based on how the player thinks she sees the character going on her own.  If that makes any sense...

Totally does.  I think the possibility of playing both modes simultaneously is going to happen in almost any way that you try to break out the motivations.

Which isn't to say that people are always playing both modes though, right?  I have, in fact, known people who would either (a) do something that was a clear break from previous character tendencies if it satisfied some other criterion, or (b) ignore obvious opportunities for their own type of fun because they felt constrained by their character.  So sometimes these distinctions are clear-cut, but nowhere near always.

I wonder if there's a better way to say it, which doesn't lose the benefit that these terms have in the times that they are descriptive, but also doesn't obscure the times when the two things are intertwined.

Quote from: TonyLBYes, they're terms that have been used extensively on the Forge!

I think these were loosely based on the stances from rec.games.frp.advocacy.  It changed them in such a way that (A) it eliminated important distinctions that were captured by the r.g.f.a and (B) applied words that create wrong assumptions if you think of them in their plain English sense.

In r.g.f.a, the Actor stance described a player who was actually acting -- that is, the player who made choices as a performance to the other players and the GM.  Their choices need not necessary be "in character".  They may simply be what the player considers entertaining and fun to play.

The Audience stance described the player who observes the game from an omniscient perspective.  It's the level at which a player appreciates the big picture story from the outside, like the audience appreciates a book or movie.

The Author stance is the stance from which players and GM contruct the SIS.  It's writing things into the SIS rather than making decisions about what they do.

The In-Character Stance is making decisions from the perspective of a character.  There are two versions.  The first version is the third person basic In-Character or IC stance in which decisions are made for the character by considering the character.  The second version is the first person Deep IC or Immersive stance, in which the player experiences the game and think In Character.

While the r.g.f.a stances weren't perfect but I think they were pretty good and I frankly think the Forge version made things worse, not better.  Of course that might just be my own personal bias showing through.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile the r.g.f.a stances weren't perfect but I think they were pretty good and I frankly think the Forge version made things worse, not better.  Of course that might just be my own personal bias showing through.

John:  James and I are having a substantive discussion about roleplaying games here.  Do you really want to have yet another bitch-fests about the history of the Forge?  If so, can I ask that you split off a thread to do it in, so we can continue our talk about RPGs undisturbed?

Quote from: TonyLBJohn:  James and I are having a substantive discussion about roleplaying games here.  Do you really want to have yet another bitch-fests about the history of the Forge?  If so, can I ask that you split off a thread to do it in, so we can continue our talk about RPGs undisturbed?

Rather than focusing on the "bitch-fest" at the end of my reply, try reading the categories and then apply them to the substantive discussion about roleplaying games that you've been having instead of the Forge terms.  In particular, the distinction between Author, Actor, In-Character, and Deep IC/Immersion can be very important when it comes to two players approaching the same game from different perspectives, as can the entire r.g.f.a model.  

In particular, when you said earlier in this thread, "there are also plenty of situations in which actor and author mode are the same thing", I think what's really going on is much more clear in the r.g.f.a version (pull one of the old FAQs off of Google Groups for a more detailed description), where the FAQ summary says of the Author stance, , "This is the stance which must be adopted for any world-building to take place.  It is also the stance from which a GM might introduce plot elements to the game.  The entire process of character creation requires the adoption of the stance of Author, as do the vast majority of meta-game decisions."  In other words, when the player decides to create a character that should play a certai way, they are doing so as an Author, not an Actor (Forge sense) or Actor/IC/Deep IC (r.g.f.a sense).

I know my last paragraph was a bit snarky but if you want to avoid critiques of Forge theory, how about trying to discuss issues without using Forge categories as a starting point?

Look, I know you guys have history - not that you necessarily have it together - I don't care.  This is one of those rare "theory" discussions you can get here that aren't bound by any presumed truths or crap like that.  so I'm going to ask we keep the bickering to a minimum - at least until I get what I want out of it.

Quote from: John MorrowI think these were loosely based on the stances from rec.games.frp.advocacy.  It changed them in such a way that (A) it eliminated important distinctions that were captured by the r.g.f.a and (B) applied words that create wrong assumptions if you think of them in their plain English sense.

In r.g.f.a, the Actor stance described a player who was actually acting -- that is, the player who made choices as a performance to the other players and the GM.  Their choices need not necessary be "in character".  They may simply be what the player considers entertaining and fun to play.

The first paragraphs description of changing eglish meanings is ironic given your description of this stance. I would assume an Actor is, in fact, making decisions based on the character.  I always think of Spinal Tap or Best in Show.  I don't know if you've seen them, but the basic idea is to let the actors really get into character and then describe the scene.  At that point the cameras start rolling and the scene is, to a large extent, ad-libbed.

I hate comparing RPGs to things like acting, but in this case I'll let it go.  The important part is that in these scenes, the actors are making every decision about what they are saying and doing based on what the character would do/say.  So to me, Actor stance would be someone making decisions based on what the character would do. If someone were making decisions based on how it would look as a "performance," well then that's what I'd call it - Performance stance. It seems a bit odd, but I could see people playing to the audience, as it were.

I'm sorry if I'm like a noob about this.  I don't have the long history of these debates to know why this might have been considered and dismissed.

I'll take them one at a time, if it's OK with y'all.

Quote from: James J SkachThe first paragraphs description of changing eglish meanings is ironic given your description of this stance. I would assume an Actor is, in fact, making decisions based on the character.

Actually, I think my summary was wrong.  Rereading the FAQ, I should have just copied the first sentence instead of ad-libbing.  My fault and my bad.  The FAQ says: "The position from which the game is viewed when the player makes a meta-game decision to further his portrayal of his character by consciously attempting to mimic the character's actions, tonal quality, facial expressions, gestures, or other physical manifestations of character."

Quote from: James J SkachI always think of Spinal Tap or Best in Show.  I don't know if you've seen them, but the basic idea is to let the actors really get into character and then describe the scene.  At that point the cameras start rolling and the scene is, to a large extent, ad-libbed.

While some actors do that, it's not what many actors do.  But the point of this stance was to distinguish a player thinking about their portrayal to others at the table (performing) vs. how the player is thinking about the game situation in character.

Quote from: James J SkachThe important part is that in these scenes, the actors are making every decision about what they are saying and doing based on what the character would do/say.  So to me, Actor stance would be someone making decisions based on what the character would do.

Then how would you describe a player thinking about their portrayal to the other participants in the game?  This aspect was very important to William Stoddard in a discussion I had with him on the Pyramid discussion boards.  And how do you make a distinction between someone making decisions as the player based on what they think their character would do and someone thinking in character and just making decisions as their character?  That can be a very important distinction, too.  I'm not saying that the r.g.f.a categories are exhaustive or even perfect, I'm just saying that they capture more distinctions than the Forge version and think you should wonder whether the things that are being put together really belong together and whether the reason things look the same is because the categories are seperating things that are the same and shouldn't be seperated.

Quote from: James J SkachIf someone were making decisions based on how it would look as a "performance," well then that's what I'd call it - Performance stance. It seems a bit odd, but I could see people playing to the audience, as it were.

I'd have no problem with that change and do think it would be more clear.  Like I said, the portrayal of character to other players is very important to some groups.  Portrayal might be an even better word.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm sorry if I'm like a noob about this.  I don't have the long history of these debates to know why this might have been considered and dismissed.

I think your complaint is perfectly reasonable.  I don't think your concern every came up but it's a reasonable one as far as I'm concerned.  I also think that including the equivalent of the Forge Director stance, perhaps as a version of the Author stance, could add a useful distinction to the model, as well.

Quote from: John MorrowActually, I think my summary was wrong.  Rereading the FAQ, I should have just copied the first sentence instead of ad-libbing.  My fault and my bad.  The FAQ says: "The position from which the game is viewed when the player makes a meta-game decision to further his portrayal of his character by consciously attempting to mimic the character's actions, tonal quality, facial expressions, gestures, or other physical manifestations of character."

It's my fault for being too lazy and inconsiderate not to go look up some of this stuff on the google groups - its just not my medium but I should get beyond that. Do you have links that would be a good start, say, the FAQ?  Did you already provide them and I spaced?

Quote from: John MorrowWhile some actors do that, it's not what many actors do.  But the point of this stance was to distinguish a player thinking about their portrayal to others at the table (performing) vs. how the player is thinking about the game situation in character.

My apologies if I implied it's what all actors do.  It's just what comes to mind when I think about acting with respect to RPG's.

Quote from: John MorrowThen how would you describe a player thinking about their portrayal to the other participants in the game?  This aspect was very important to William Stoddard in a discussion I had with him on the Pyramid discussion boards.

This is one of the important points - I'm not familiar with players thinking about their portrayal to the other participants.  I apologize for my lack of experience in this arena, but it's really kind of foreign to me, and so hard to discuss. Can you point me to any info on this preference?

Quote from: John MorrowAnd how do you make a distinction between someone making decisions as the player based on what they think their character would do and someone thinking in character and just making decisions as their character?  That can be a very important distinction, too.

Can you help me understand why this is an important distinction?  I mean, in both cases, the player is making decisions/acting based on the character. To me, it's a difference of immersion (please don't read anything into that word) preference.  I often say "my character does X" while other people say "I do X." I've rarely seen the two as different as long as both instances are truly basing it on character.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's my fault for being too lazy and inconsiderate not to go look up some of this stuff on the google groups - its just not my medium but I should get beyond that. Do you have links that would be a good start, say, the FAQ?  Did you already provide them and I spaced?

The FAQ was posted regularly and evolved a bit over time.  Here is a good but possibly early version that details the stances from that group:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/fc1c371f8ef26300?dmode=source

Here is a 2003 FAQ that, in my opinion, puts "immersion" in the wrong category.  I'm sure that if I do some digging, I can find posts where people used "Immersion" to mean Deep IC and not IC, but maybe it was never as clear for people as I thought it was:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/c958d5bdaeeb635a?dmode=source

Quote from: James J SkachMy apologies if I implied it's what all actors do.  It's just what comes to mind when I think about acting with respect to RPG's.

I think you were just illustrating that the term can mean different (yet reasonable) things to different people.  That's a mark against the term, not against you.

Quote from: James J SkachThis is one of the important points - I'm not familiar with players thinking about their portrayal to the other participants.  I apologize for my lack of experience in this arena, but it's really kind of foreign to me, and so hard to discuss. Can you point me to any info on this preference?

Like I said, my debate with William Stoddard was on the Pyramid boards and has probably long since expired.  I don't remember all of the details but the gist was that a big part of his enjoyment from role-playing was watching players portray their characters.  There certainly seem to be plenty of people who enjoy watching the other players play their characters.  You might want to ask about that here or on some other board you frequent.

Quote from: James J SkachCan you help me understand why this is an important distinction?  I mean, in both cases, the player is making decisions/acting based on the character. To me, it's a difference of immersion (please don't read anything into that word) preference.  I often say "my character does X" while other people say "I do X." I've rarely seen the two as different as long as both instances are truly basing it on character.

Externally, they can look almost identical.  The difference is less one of results than one of perspective and technique.  What works for one might not work for the other because of where the player's mind is.  

The biggest distinction that I've noticed deal with genre elements that don't make sense in character.  For example, a comic book game might require that the players not notice that Bruce Wayne is Batman.  If I'm thinking about my character, it's easy enough to just say that my character doesn't notice.  If I'm thinking in character and my character notices that Bruce Wayne is Batman, it's very difficult to unthink that thought.  

Trying to force a character that's been developed by thinking in character to do something that doesn't make sense in character can produce an effect people on r.g.f.a called turning the character to cardboard.  That is, the player can no longer sustain the mental model of the character they had because of the cognitive dissonance in that model.  The other result is insane characters.

Added: Note that not everyone who thinks in character does it full time (some people do it in snippets) and not everyone has the same problems with context switching and so forth.

Sorry. Duplicate.

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

Out of curiosity, what about when doing what you believe your character would do is what makes the game fun?  I'm not clear whether that's what this definition is trying to say or whether it's assuming that sometimes just doing what you believe your character would do isn't going to be fun.

Quote from: John MorrowOut of curiosity, what about when doing what you believe your character would do is what makes the game fun?  I'm not clear whether that's what this definition is trying to say or whether it's assuming that sometimes just doing what you believe your character would do isn't going to be fun.

Actually, this is pretty much what we were discussing before

I'd love to discuss the r.g.f.a. stuff, but I'd also like to keep up the discussion of the Actor/Author/Director divide.  I'm greedy that way.  I've made a separate thread for the Actor/Author/Audience/IC, and then when we all (i.e. me too!) know enough about both models, I could easily envision a third thread in which we compare and contrast.  Does that seem like a good solution?