Actor/Author/Director Stance: How's that sit with you?

TonyLB · January 22, 2007, 10:37:40 PM

Quote from: StuartI don't think "Author" is the right term here since all the players are authoring the "text" of the game/story... and taking out the "fun" part the only difference with the first term is -- doing what you believe your character would do vs. doing something you don't believe your character would do. That's probably most often referred to as "not staying in character" or something similar.

Except that we've just been talking about how you can be in Author stance while staying in character, so ... I don't think that term refers to the same thing I'm referring to.

James J Skach · January 22, 2007, 11:06:24 PM

Quote from: TonyLBExcept that we've just been talking about how you can be in Author stance while staying in character, so ... I don't think that term refers to the same thing I'm referring to.

Ok, the more I go back and read the OP and what Stuart's saying, Author means absolutely nothing the way it's defined. I mean, look at them again:

Quote from: TonyLBActor: 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.

Doing what make the game fun for you? I mean, that covers just about everything, including doing what your character would do. So we were bound to find that the two were not mutually exclusive.

As your definitons are written, Author is actually a superset of Actor except in the case you would do what your character would do even if it's not fun - and really, how often would that be the case?

TonyLB · January 22, 2007, 11:12:14 PM

Quote from: James J SkachDoing what make the game fun for you? I mean, that covers just about everything, including doing what your character would do. So we were bound to find that the two were not mutually exclusive.

As your definitons are written, Author is actually a superset of Actor except in the case you would do what your character would do even if it's not fun - and really, how often would that be the case?

Well, I'll have to mull that. Certainly the idea of doing what-my-character-would-do if it doesn't also lead directly to something cool and fun isn't something that I see happening in my games a lot these days ... but I do seem to remember a time when it was more common in my gaming than it is today.

dindenver · January 22, 2007, 11:26:01 PM

Hi!
Thanks Tony, I was always confused as to the difference between Author and Director. but your description makes sense. as to using literary terms, i get it, except those are much clunkier than these terms. You can grok actor and author stance almost intuitively and that's a good thing. 1st person blah, 3rd person blah is not intuitive and still has to e learned, so why ont use a term that is more natural?

James J Skach · January 22, 2007, 11:36:56 PM

How about:

In character sans meta-game info - the player makes decisions based on what his character would do ignoring any meta-game info available.
In character with meta-game info - the player makes decisions based on what her character would do including any meta-game info available.
Out of character sans meta-game info - the player makes decisions based on what she wants and what the character knows.
Out of character with meta-game info - the player makes decisions based on what he wants and what he knows.

Call 'em what you want. Include in "player" the GM, whether traditional or new-fangled setup.

jhkim · January 23, 2007, 11:18:50 PM

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I'll have to mull that. Certainly the idea of doing what-my-character-would-do if it doesn't also lead directly to something cool and fun isn't something that I see happening in my games a lot these days ... but I do seem to remember a time when it was more common in my gaming than it is today.

It seems possible -- but if Actor Stance is defined that way, shouldn't Author Stance be defined similarly?

i.e. Author Stance: Doing what you believe is best for the story, whether it makes the game fun for you or not.

John Morrow · January 23, 2007, 11:51:41 PM

Quote from: jhkimIt seems possible -- but if Actor Stance is defined that way, shouldn't Author Stance be defined similarly?

i.e. Author Stance: Doing what you believe is best for the story, whether it makes the game fun for you or not.

That definition strikes me as the road to a "grimly determined to follow a style no matter how much fun we don't have" version of the GDS or GNS.

(And, yes, I do think you are making a good point about the bias of the definition.)

TonyLB · January 24, 2007, 08:25:00 AM

Quote from: jhkimIt seems possible -- but if Actor Stance is defined that way, shouldn't Author Stance be defined similarly?

i.e. Author Stance: Doing what you believe is best for the story, whether it makes the game fun for you or not.

Hrm. Moving away from the end-product ("fun") and back toward a specific method (in this case, story-structure). That would certainly parallel the Actor definition more closely. I'm not at all sure that "best for the story" is the term that I'd actually use in there, but your general point is a good one. More pondering. :hmm:

James J Skach · January 24, 2007, 03:08:47 PM

What about just two categories to start.

Character: You make decisions based on what your character would know/has seen/would want. This could be third-person "My character would know X," or first-person "I want Y" depending on how deeply in-character you play.

Player: You make decisions based not only on what your character would know/has see/would want, but also on what you as a player know/want. The actual motivation (win the game, solve the puzzle, tell the story) is not important, only that you use your motivations as part of the decision.

You can not be Character and Player, but Player can include Character (if that makes sense).

Start there and move through a tree...

TonyLB · January 24, 2007, 03:36:43 PM

I'd say that to make the term useful, you'd almost have to say that "Player stance" is when you are conscious of acting as the Player.

But ... damn, that's simple, plain-english and elegant. I'm liking it.

James J Skach · January 24, 2007, 03:57:42 PM

Quote from: TonyLBI'd say that to make the term useful, you'd almost have to say that "Player stance" is when you are conscious of acting as the Player.

But ... damn, that's simple, plain-english and elegant. I'm liking it.

I'll take the last thing first. Aw-fucking-yea-baby...

Now, the first. I think in both cases there are times when you are conscious of what you're doing. I've specifically said, "Oh, I won't do that, my character wouldn't know that." So in a way, I've thought of an action, then dismissed it, consciously, based on which "stance" I'm in.

Oh wait..now I think I see what you're saying. That if you're not consciously doing it, to you you're still in Character mode - yeah?

John Morrow · January 24, 2007, 04:37:45 PM

Quote from: James J SkachYou can not be Character and Player, but Player can include Character (if that makes sense).

This is a basic meta-game/not-meta-game division. What complicates it are the different types of meta-game concerns that may conflict with each other.

James J Skach · January 24, 2007, 04:55:47 PM

Quote from: John MorrowThis is a basic meta-game/not-meta-game division. What complicates it are the different types of meta-game concerns that may conflict with each other.

Agreed.

Agreed.

But, ya know, sometimes it's best to get everyone on board with the basics

And, like I said, if you have a group that all plays from Character "stance" than you can ignore the issues with Player "stance". Kinda like those old tables in D&D that said what races felt about other races, or the way Myers-Briggs has ways for the different types to deal with each other.

TonyLB · January 24, 2007, 05:06:18 PM

Quote from: James J SkachOh wait..now I think I see what you're saying. That if you're not consciously doing it, to you you're still in Character mode - yeah?

Uh ... not necessarily. You might not be thinking about either your place as a player or the position of your character. You might be thinking about cheese.

What I'm mostly saying is that if you say "Anyone who is acting based on their own desires is in Player stance" then it becomes meaningless. Everyone is in Player stance all the time. That's not a real useful term for me, y'know? Whereas if you limit it to when they're conscious of the fact that their desires are playing a part then it becomes something that could, conceivably, not be true at a given moment.

TonyLB · January 24, 2007, 05:07:27 PM

And I just noticed something, James ... why would you say that you can't be Character and Player? Can you elaborate on that?