TheRPGSite

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 :D

"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.

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.

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. :D

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 :D

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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4051) 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?

Quote from: TonyLBI'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.

No problem.  Just make sure that divide isn't limiting how you are looking at the issue.  I have no problem taking the r.g.f.a discussion over to your new thread and, frankly, beyond a compare and contrast, I'd like to see if either model is missing something.

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.

So, back on this topic:  I think (though maybe I'm wrong about this too) that Actor and Author the way I've written them up in the first post are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, they're not even written to be mutually exclusive.  They're ... what's the word ... orthogonal.

If you're saying "Yeah, my character would totally do this" then you're in Actor stance.  Yay!

If you're saying "Oh, this would totally be a Good Thing for reasons having nothing to do with what my character would do," then you're in Author stance.  Yay!

If you're doing both?  Well then, more power to you.  In fact, I'd say that the vast majority of the time I'm doing both these days.

"What my character would do" is not, usually, a single brightly lit path.  There are a wide variety of responses that a character could plausibly have.  Often, several of them are clearly also going to be fun as all hell on levels other than simply 'It's fun to play my character.'  Some paths are going to put the other players on the spot, or put me on the spot, or show us something about the nature of ... I dunno ... cheese, or something.

So, among the things that my character could equally plausibly do, I choose the one that's fun.  Best of both worlds.

Quote from: TonyLB"What my character would do" is not, usually, a single brightly lit path.  There are a wide variety of responses that a character could plausibly have.  Often, several of them are clearly also going to be fun as all hell on levels other than simply 'It's fun to play my character.'  Some paths are going to put the other players on the spot, or put me on the spot, or show us something about the nature of ... I dunno ... cheese, or something.

I think that's where the distinction between what the r.g.f.a model calls "In Character" (thinking about what your character would do) and "Deep IC" thinking in character as your character, is important.  When I'm thinking as my character, I not only usually have a single brightly lit path (the character just does what they think they should do) but in that frame of mind, I'm not normally thinking about whether that's good or bad from a perspective outside of my character.  Some people seem to have a much easier time toggling between thinking in character and outside of the character.  Vincent Baker seems to have a much easier time switching perspectives than I do.

For me, thinking in character is like booting a computer.  I have to start up the characters memory, thought processes, and emotional state and can't do that instantly.  As such, I can suspend the character to do some things out of character (e.g., pouring myself more Pepsi or making a skill roll) but if the task requires a lot of mental effort or accesses the same information that the character is using, the in character thinking crashes and I'll have to reboot to get back into it.

Quote from: TonyLBSo, among the things that my character could equally plausibly do, I choose the one that's fun.  Best of both worlds.

This is actually the problem I have as a GM, when I'm not thinking in character.  And then my problem there is picking which one is fun because they often all look like good choices to me.  I roll a lot of dice when I GM because it's easier for me than deciding.  The one interesting side-effect of that is that I've been told that I'm not easy to predict by players who were used to playing the GM (that is, figuring out what the GM is planning and doing things to manipulate the GM).  Hmmm.  That's probably another stance, too -- observing and manipulating other participants at the game level.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I'm thinking as my character, I not only usually have a single brightly lit path (the character just does what they think they should do) but in that frame of mind, I'm not normally thinking about whether that's good or bad from a perspective outside of my character.

Well, see now, that's interesting.  From my definitions that makes it sound as if for you, Actor and Author mode are incompatible.  If you're thinking about the outside perspective then it spoils your ability to think about the inside, and vice versa.  Does that sound right?

For me, not so much.  The two ways of thinking don't conflict.  It's not even that I toggle rapidly (though I understand why, if the state of thinking about what your character would do excludes other considerations for you, that you would envision it that way).  I just do both at the same time, without interruption.

Strange, huh?

But I keep going back to the thought that the most important question to consider is, "Are you thinking about things in such a way as to try to be consistent with your character or not?"

Now for some of you high falutin' theory guys (it's a joke, so pipe down you), there might be something to exploring the greater detail of WWMCD vs WWIDAMC (go on, figure 'em out for yourself). But somehow, for most players and GM's, I'm guessing the first question will be the most important in trying to figure out why a game group isn't working well together.

Perhaps it's better to think of these things in a tree format (if you want to classify things in this way). Question 1, A) Inside Character or B) Outside Character.  Does this help diagnose the group's problems? Yes, you're done.  No - OK, if you chose A) Inside Character, do you...

And so on...

Kind of like a Help chain you see in software...

EDIT: Which, of course as I go back and read them, is a pretty close approximation of what you have for Actor and Author.  I think, perhaps, I'd change a few terms and things...hmmm...

Quote from: James J SkachBut I keep going back to the thought that the most important question to consider is, "Are you thinking about things in such a way as to try to be consistent with your character or not?"

Now for some of you high falutin' theory guys (it's a joke, so pipe down you), there might be something to exploring the greater detail of WWMCD vs WWIDAMC (go on, figure 'em out for yourself). But somehow, for most players and GM's, I'm guessing the first question will be the most important in trying to figure out why a game group isn't working well together.

I think you lost me.  Which first question?  Maybe can I get a few lines of "Alice, Bob and Clyde" fictional example to where you're thinking of this question coming up, and why it's most important?

Quote from: TonyLBI think you lost me.  Which first question?  Maybe can I get a few lines of "Alice, Bob and Clyde" fictional example to where you're thinking of this question coming up, and why it's most important?

Sorry...I was so long between posts (had to watch the Bears and Colts win!) that I probably lost something...

My assumption is that we would like to define stance - that is, what a player is doing/saying at the table and what motivations are behind those actions - and come up with some categories to help understand what's happening during a gaming session.

Now, my next assumption is we're doing this to help ourselves and other people have a tool to diagnose what's happening at a table to either design a game or improve group play.

So, I'm thinking of this as a kind of diagnosis tool.  It's kinda how my mind works when trying to categorize things.  So, when trying to determine a player's stance, I ask a question - "How are you making decisions about what your character does/says?"

This validates, I think, your difference between Actor and Author (though I think another term for Author might be a better bet).  Am I making decisions about my character based on what the character would do - either as What Would My Character Do (WWMCD) or What Would I Do As My Character (WWIDAMC) - or am I making on them on something outside that. (EDIT: often, in traditional RPG, called guilty knowledge)

Now, we seem to have been talking about at least two possibilities for the former - subdivisions if you will (three if you account for Performance, which I think I get now but I think might be a different animal).  Whether the distinction is valid or not we can discuss.  I'm sure there are tons of subdivisions for those making decisions outside of that.

In either case, if you have a problem at the table, and the first order question of In/Out of Character helps you fix it, you're not going to care about the subdivisions.

It's just one of the ways I approach attempts at classification. Ask the question that would lead to the classification to see if its valid.

Does that help?

Oh ... yeah!

I guess I thought we were all on the same ... okay.  Let me back up.  Way back when you wrote:

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.

I read more into that than I think you meant.  So let me extend what you actually said to what I read between the lines.

   "... and because Joe has chosen a character who naturally kills orcs, he can be in Actor stance ('I kill Orcs because it's what Brog does') and Author stance ('Me likey kill 'dem Orcs!  More Orcs!  More killing!') at the same time without any conflict."

I don't think that you could pin Joe down to one or the other of Actor or Author.  He's clearly doing both, right?  And I don't see anything in the descriptions (at least the ones I gave) that says he can't be doing both.

So I'm pretty sure I no longer see these two things as either-or ... and so I can't really go with you on the idea of using that either-or choice to navigate a tree.  How about we just realize "Oh, hey, these things aren't mutually exclusive," and make our lives much easier?

Quote from: TonyLBWell, see now, that's interesting.  From my definitions that makes it sound as if for you, Actor and Author mode are incompatible.  If you're thinking about the outside perspective then it spoils your ability to think about the inside, and vice versa.  Does that sound right?

In a Forge sense, that's probably correct.  Director is also a problem for me.  Basically, if most of my mind is working on thinking in character, thinking about anything out of the character (whether it's an omniscient setting issue or the game as a game) can cause problems for me.

Quote from: TonyLBFor me, not so much.  The two ways of thinking don't conflict.  It's not even that I toggle rapidly (though I understand why, if the state of thinking about what your character would do excludes other considerations for you, that you would envision it that way).  I just do both at the same time, without interruption.

I think you are still missing a critical distinction, based on that comment.  I don't think about what my character would do.  I think in character.  It's not the same thing.  

The clearest example that I can give happened years ago, I was playing a character involved in some illegal activity trying to evade the authorities.  Up until that point, he had been involved in a lot of adventures with an NPC girlfriend and another PC.  To evade the authorities, since he didn't feel he could withstand the lie detection they had available, he decided to have his memories psionically scrubbed of the illegal activity he'd been involved in.  When that happened, I filtered the character's memory accordingly.

What happened after that was the character started to feel strong uneasiness and paranoia while dealing with his girlfriend and the other PC.  This wasn't something that I decided to do.  It came out of thinking in character, and it wasn't even conscious.  

What I realized after the game, when I psychoanalyzed my own character to figure out what was going on, was that the erased memories contained all of the most intense bonding experiences between my PC, his girlfriend, and the other PC.  Without the memories of either the illegal activity or the bonding experiences, the evasion about various things as well as the close familiar dialog between the other PC and my character's girlfriend took on a  very sinister appearance to the character -- as if the other PC had moved in on his girlfriend and was trying to do him harm.  

I didn't think about doing that.  I'm not sure I would ever have thought of that consciously.  I was thinking in character as my character and it happened.  Think of it as a controlled multiple personality, if that helps.

Do you understand the distinction I'm trying to make?  It is the distinction between IC and Deep IC in the r.g.f.a stances model.

Quote from: John MorrowI think you are still missing a critical distinction, based on that comment.  I don't think about what my character would do.  I think in character.  It's not the same thing.

That's fine.  Do you get that the definitions being discussed in this thread do not touch on that distinction?

If you're "thinking as your character" then you're in Actor stance.  If you're "thinking about what your character would do" then you're in Actor stance.

What I'm saying is that some people (e.g. me) achieve Actor stance in a way that doesn't preclude their simultaneously achieving Author stance.

It sounds, to me, as if you only go into Actor stance in ways that preclude your simultaneously achieving Author stance.

Do you sometimes go into Actor stance in different ways that don't preclude your simultaneously achieving Author stance?  Do you have a different mindset at your disposal that lets you play with both at once?

Quote from: TonyLBOh ... yeah!

I guess I thought we were all on the same ... okay.  Let me back up.  Way back when you wrote: I read more into that than I think you meant.  So let me extend what you actually said to what I read between the lines.

   "... and because Joe has chosen a character who naturally kills orcs, he can be in Actor stance ('I kill Orcs because it's what Brog does') and Author stance ('Me likey kill 'dem Orcs!  More Orcs!  More killing!') at the same time without any conflict."

I don't think that you could pin Joe down to one or the other of Actor or Author.  He's clearly doing both, right?  And I don't see anything in the descriptions (at least the ones I gave) that says he can't be doing both.

So I'm pretty sure I no longer see these two things as either-or ... and so I can't really go with you on the idea of using that either-or choice to navigate a tree.  How about we just realize "Oh, hey, these things aren't mutually exclusive," and make our lives much easier?

Abso-fucking-lutely...

It could be that Joe picks characters that will like to kill orcs because - hey! Joe likes killing orcs! He doesn't want to have to "act" much, so in order to hang out with his buddies (who like to challenge themselves a bit more with their choice of character, shall we say) and have a good time, he picks Brog.

Once that decision is made, there's no difference between the two.  In fact, he is occupying two formerly mutually exclusive points in space and time at one time, thereby ripping a hole in the known universe and...well..after that I got nothin'

But it does, to me, bring up an interesting point.  Is there something that needs to be done at the "chargen" pointin the process - something like a stance that classifies how people come to pick the characters they play?

P.S. You see this in a group where one guy keeps picking "Brog" right?  Probably a common thing.  And at some point you might get friction because somebody decides to say "Geez, does Joe ever play anything but Brog?"

EDIT: And just to be clear, it's why I mentioned a Tree approach.  Tree are funny things, they don't just have two branches (unless, of course, you're talking about a binary tree).  So the answers could include C) Both and D) Other that lead to different questions. Make sense?
EDIT2: My bad, I thought I had mentioned tree approach - perhaps in another thread.

Quote from: James J SkachBut I keep going back to the thought that the most important question to consider is, "Are you thinking about things in such a way as to try to be consistent with your character or not?"

What does it mean to be "consistent with your character"?

Quote from: John MorrowWhat does it mean to be "consistent with your character"?

I don't know what your defintion would be.  Perhaps yet another thread. Yikes.

You've mentioned a couple of possibilities.  One I'm familiar with, the other you've explained and I get the distinction. In the long run, for me, it's that when I make a decision about my character's actions/words, I try to do it in such a way as to be consistent with the characters attributes, personality, insert-system-specific-character-defining-things-here.

Does my character lie? No, then I better not lie.  Does my character hate orcs? Yes? Shoot first ask questions later. Things like that.

Help?

Quote from: James J SkachBut it does, to me, bring up an interesting point.  Is there something that needs to be done at the "chargen" pointin the process - something like a stance that classifies how people come to pick the characters they play?

I dunno.  There's a whole pile of interesting stuff in terms of how you choose the constraints that you will play under, in order to strengthen you rather than restrict you.

Like, I used to always take "Reckless" and "Rigid Code of Ethics" when playing Champions, because I liked to play a certain devil-may-care silver-age style of hero.  Those "disadvantages" weren't restrictions for me ... they were exactly in line with what I was going to do anyway, and if anybody groused about it (which they seldom did, but I suppose it could have happened) then I could easily point at my character sheet and say "Look, I can't help it!  I've got the psychological limitations."

But I don't think that only happens in character generation.  People choose their games on that basis too.  They decide what the world's going to be like to suit the type of things they want to do ... do you play Vampire as a group of on-the-run Caitiffs, or as the ruling members of the power elite?  Well, depends how you want to be constrained during the course of the game.

Quote from: TonyLBThat's fine.  Do you get that the definitions being discussed in this thread do not touch on that distinction?

If you're "thinking as your character" then you're in Actor stance.  If you're "thinking about what your character would do" then you're in Actor stance.

What I'm saying is that some people (e.g. me) achieve Actor stance in a way that doesn't preclude their simultaneously achieving Author stance

It sounds, to me, as if you only go into Actor stance in ways that preclude your simultaneously achieving Author stance.

Correct.  In other words, one form of Actor stance plays more nicely with Author stance than the other.  That's important if you want to start making assumptions about how the stances interact within a player.  

Quote from: TonyLBDo you sometimes go into Actor stance in different ways that don't preclude your simultaneously achieving Author stance?  Do you have a different mindset at your disposal that lets you play with both at once?

I find "what would my character do" an uncomfortable way to play a character because I can imagine my character doing all sorts of things and have no way to pick between the possibilities (the same problem I have with diceless games).  So what's clear and easy for me while thinking in character (because my character knows what they want to do) becomes a chore thinking about my character.  It also sort of defeats my primary reason for playing, which is to experience the game in character.

I can do this when I GM for NPCs to a certain degree, but even then I often find myself slipping into the character to play through scenes with more detailed NPCs or NPCs that I've run quite a bit.  At other times, I roll a lot of dice to pick between choices and while that works OK for brief NPC encounters, it's not really satisfying for a PC.  This is one of the reasons why I enjoy being a player more than being a GM.

So the answer is that I probably could play with a different mindset but it's not the way I'd prefer to play and I'm not sure I'd enjoy running a PC that way.  It might be worth a try one of these days, but I suspect I'll have to force myself not to slip into thinking in character because that happens when I run NPCs as a GM.

Quote from: John MorrowI find "what would my character do" an uncomfortable way to play a character because I can imagine my character doing all sorts of things and have no way to pick between the possibilities (the same problem I have with diceless games).

Whereas, as I've said, I like the broad range of possibilities, because I do have a way to pick between them:  Author mode.  I choose the one I think will be the most fun for the game generally.

Fascinating how differently people approach the same hobby.

Quote from: James J SkachBut it does, to me, bring up an interesting point.  Is there something that needs to be done at the "chargen" pointin the process - something like a stance that classifies how people come to pick the characters they play?

The model in Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering touches on that.  

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html

In particular, see the Specialist.

Quote from: TonyLBWhereas, as I've said, I like the broad range of possibilities, because I do have a way to pick between them:  Author mode.  I choose the one I think will be the most fun for the game generally.

Yeah, that doesn't work for me either because I can think of so many ways in which most might be fun or interesting.  One thing rarely sticks out for me, even if I use "fun" as the filter.  You can probably find thousands of messages on rec.games.frp.advocacy from a decade ago with me trying to explain this in the context of diceless GMing.  That's why I said that as a GM, even when I'm fully in Author mode, I roll a lot of dice on my own to make decisions.

Quote from: TonyLBFascinating how differently people approach the same hobby.

Correct.  I sometimes speculate that we are all really doing different things that just happen to overlap in external form to some degree.

Quote from: TonyLBDo you sometimes go into Actor stance in different ways that don't preclude your simultaneously achieving Author stance?  Do you have a different mindset at your disposal that lets you play with both at once?

One other thing that I should add here is that I've learned how to recognize when my characters are likely to make in character choices that will wreck a game and stop and redirect the character in Author mode when that happens.  The biggest triggers are usually despiration and extreme intensity, because I also feel emotions in character.  

Because of this gaming techniques designed to maximize the intensity of character's experience so that a player who is thinking about their character can feel some emotion from it are just way too strong for me most of the time because I feel the emotions [corrected]directly[/corrected], and not through identification.  It can ruin a game for me.  

Shouting is useful when a person is far away but it can be painful if you do it right into someone's ear.

Quote from: John MorrowBecause of this gaming techniques designed to maximize the intensity of character's experience so that a player who is thinking about their character can feel some emotion from it are just way too strong for me most of the time because I feel the emotions direction, and not through identification.  It can ruin a game for me.

So, like, My Life with Master is not high on your list of games to play, because the intensity of the (incredibly negative) emotions would be overwhelming?  Am I understanding right?

Quote from: TonyLBSo, like, My Life with Master is not high on your list of games to play, because the intensity of the (incredibly negative) emotions would be overwhelming?  Am I understanding right?

I haven't looked at that game in particular, but as described, that's probably correct.  

It's not simply the intensity, though that's a big part of it.  It's also the relentlessness.  When I read Forge people talking about "this NOW!" or "that NOW!" and bangs and kickers and how everything should be tightly focused and it all just seems like too much to me.  But maybe a single session could work for me.

Quote from: StuartI 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 disagree.  I also choose actions that I do not enjoy so that others may have their own fun.

Quote from: KingSpoomI disagree.  I also choose actions that I do not enjoy so that others may have their own fun.

You would only do that if you wanted to see others have their own fun.  In effect, seeing them have fun is more fun for you.  Or you're creating an environment where they'll reciprocate -- making more fun for you later on.  You wouldn't do any of this if you didn't get any enjoyment from it at all.

Quote from: StuartYou would only do that if you wanted to see others have their own fun.  In effect, seeing them have fun is more fun for you.  Or you're creating an environment where they'll reciprocate -- making more fun for you later on.  You wouldn't do any of this if you didn't get any enjoyment from it at all.

If I promise that "fun" was an unwisely chosen term, can we possibly avoid a semantic argument about what "fun" means?

Man, I oughta know better than to use that word. :(

Quote from: TonyLBIf I promise that "fun" was an unwisely chosen term, can we possibly avoid a semantic argument about what "fun" means?

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

Looks good now. :)

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

Looks good now. :)

Yep.  Rewriting the Author entry is a little trickier, though.

Quote from: John MorrowThe model in Robin Laws' book Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering touches on that.  

http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/models/robinslaws.html

In particular, see the Specialist.

Prior to Robin's laws I had seen something very very similar in the... 2nd? Edition champions book, and their chapter on GMing remains among the very few I actually can say stuck with me.  Good stuff, all of it, and very focused on playing a good game.  I especially like their page of Don'ts.  



Completely as an aside I only ever bought Feng Shui because a buddy of mine knew a guy named Robin Laws who had written an RPG. Never found out if he really did know the guy or not...

Quote from: TonyLBYep.  Rewriting the Author entry is a little trickier, though.

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

I 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.

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)

Director is the wrong term here.  A director usually works with an existing text and interprets it for the stage/screen.  They work with the playwright/screenwriter who would add new elements to the narrative.  The director is usually responsible for things like how the bottle is grabbed from the bar, where everyone is in the room, etc.  A major (named) prop would probably appear in the script.

Narrator might be the term you want for a player describing things external to their character.

Tony - I was thinking - and don't take this the wrong way....

If we say that they are not mutually exclusive, that you can be in both stances at once, how valuable is the distinction? I'm not sure I'm putting it this the right way.  I can see the value of the two when they are leading to different outcomes, but how valuable is the case where they happen to led to the same outcome?

Cause I think we agree they are not always mutually exclusive, but how does that help us?

I ask because this seems an attempt to identify categories of stances....

Quote from: James J SkachIf we say that they are not mutually exclusive, that you can be in both stances at once, how valuable is the distinction?

Well, first thing off the top of my head is that having a term for something, and a term in common usage, helps people feel comfortable with using that as a technique in their gaming.

So if you're talking about your game and say "Hey, Michelle, you hardly ever do any Author-mode sort of shifts for your character.  Is that deliberate?" then Michelle can either say "Yeah, I'm more comfortable staying away from that," or "Hrm ... no ... I didn't realize I was doing that.  Let me think about it," but she's less likely to say "What?  Act out-of-character?  HERESY!" without at least thinking about the subject.

As for analysis (the most "theoryish" of theory applications), you can still talk about how techniques encourage or discourage (say) Actor mode.  Writing character diaries, for instance?  A technique which clearly encourages people to practice being in Actor mode.  That doesn't mean that it makes them avoid Author mode, just that it makes it easier for them to keep the various elements of their character in mind, and makes Actor mode easier.

I dunno ... I still see just as much application, possible more, for these terms if they're not a one-and-only-one classification scheme.  Pigeonholing (of behaviors, and of people) is a powerful human instinct, but it's not the only thing that theory is good for.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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:

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...

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.

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?

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.

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 :D

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.

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.

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

Quote from: TonyLBWhat 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.

Ummm...wait a minute...how can that be?

I mean, if I'm in character, if I'm only thinking about things the way my character thinks about them, I'm not in Player mode.  Player mode is defined as utilizing anything outside in-character.

It's better the way John put it - Meta Game/Not Meta Game. I think that's the first and foremost. I just used Character and Player as thay are terms that are

• Used in RPG's all the time (not borrowed from another area)
• Relatively close in meaning to the way they are used in RPG's
• Shorther than Meta-Game/Not Meta-Game.

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

Let's think of it this way, Character is a subset of Player.

In Player, you can consider anything to decide what your character will do - the character's motivations, your motivations, the tension it will bring, the story it will create, cheese.

In Character, you are only using a subset of those - the character's motivations.

Does that explain it?

The only thing I don't like about it is that for most players out there you're always at least partially in Player Mode. I don't know anyone that's ever "only thinking about things the way my character thinks about them."

edit: ack! Cross posted. That's a better explanation.

Quote from: James J SkachI mean, if I'm in character, if I'm only thinking about things the way my character thinks about them, I'm not in Player mode.  Player mode is defined as utilizing anything outside in-character.

And you always, always are.  The character is fictional.  You may well achieve a state in which you do not think of them as fictional, in which you are not conscious of the fact that they exist only as a powerful pattern within your mind, and that you are making up fiction every time you open your mouth.  But that doesn't mean you're not doing so.

Quote from: James McMurrayThe only thing I don't like about it is that for most players out there you're always at least partially in Player Mode. I don't know anyone that's ever "only thinking about things the way my character thinks about them."

edit: ack! Cross posted. That's a better explanation.

Wait Wait Wait what's with the "always" and "ever" stuff.

As someone has pointed out before, I think you take different stances depending on your overall style.  I bet there's games where you are in Character - I've never played one but I bet LARP's are like that.

But this is about things at the atomic level - I make this decision in Character mode, this other one in Player mode.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd you always, always are.  The character is fictional.  You may well achieve a state in which you do not think of them as fictional, in which you are not conscious of the fact that they exist only as a powerful pattern within your mind, and that you are making up fiction every time you open your mouth.  But that doesn't mean you're not doing so.

Wow...WTF?

I mean, I know it's a fictional character. And I know I'm playing a fictional character, so there's always a limitation.  I mean, otherwise I'd graba club and start the whompin', right?

Look - if I'm doing everything I can to separate my out-of-character knowledge/drives from my in-character one, and only acting on the latter, I'm in Character mode.

Are you saying that's not good enough because, well, after all it's only a character and you can never really be only in character mode..

Well, I bet

• there's someone out there (possibly in this thread) who claims they can
• you're missing the point and might as well read a book or do something else.

Like I said, I know of nobody that's ever disregarding all out of character data. You basically said that to be in character there couldn't be a real world input. I had to disagree with that because it goes so far beyond what "in character" has meant up until this thread started.

And also like I said, your other explanation was much better. It allows for someone to experience player input but not let it affect character choices.

Quote from: James McMurrayLike I said, I know of nobody that's ever disregarding all out of character data. You basically said that to be in character there couldn't be a real world input. I had to disagree with that because it goes so far beyond what "in character" has meant up until this thread started.

And also like I said, your other explanation was much better. It allows for someone to experience player input but not let it affect character choices.

I'm confused, Jimmy me boy. If you don't let "player input" (so you mean the player of the character about whom the decision is being made?) affect the character, you're in Character mode.

Like I said - I bet we could find some. Or at least some who claim it (and who are we to argue?).

And real world input is NOT what I'm saying.  It could be in-world input that the player knows and the character doesn't. I'm saying exactly what John said - Meta Game versus Non Meta Game. And I'm not going to hold someone in jail because they do their best to be in Character mode but let something bizarre bleed through - like knowing what an Eagle is or knowing that the speed limit is usually 70 in MI. That's why I like the conscious aspect somebody brought in. You're knowingly considering out-of-character information.

I think me continuing the trend of two paragraphs, one arguing against a definition and another accepting a different definition is confusing us. Let me restate this one, and hopefully the argument about the other one can be dropped.

QuoteAnd also like I said, your other explanation was much better. It allows for someone to experience player input but not let it affect character choices.

Quote from: James McMurrayI think me continuing the trend of two paragraphs, one arguing against a definition and another accepting a different definition is confusing us. Let me restate this one, and hopefully the argument about the other one can be dropped.

OK, I think I get you and I'm pretty sure I agree.

You can be in Character even if you are experiencing out-of-character things.

Which is how I play, actually, come to think of it.

Yeah, that's it. :)

Quote from: James J SkachLook - if I'm doing everything I can to separate my out-of-character knowledge/drives from my in-character one, and only acting on the latter, I'm in Character mode.

I wasn't even talking about Character mode.  If you're referring to your character motivation like that then yes, of course, you're in Character mode.

But that doesn't mean that you're not in Player mode, right?  Because Player mode is defined as: "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."

Are you continuing to play because you want to?  There.  Done.  You're in Player mode.  I don't think anyone ever isn't.  They act based on what they know and want.  Like, for instance, wanting to play in-character.

It's a meaningless definition because everyone always fulfills it.  That has nothing to do with Character mode (and a good thing, too!) but it does make the Player-mode definition less usable.

What I was saying was that if you change the definition to read "You consciously make decisions based on what you as a player know and want" then you get into territory where the definition is actually saying something.

Then, people who are playing deep immersion would not be in Player mode.  People who are playing a meta-game heavy Amber throne war would be in Player mode.  See, with that modification the term is saying something.

Quote from: TonyLBAnd you always, always are.  The character is fictional.  You may well achieve a state in which you do not think of them as fictional, in which you are not conscious of the fact that they exist only as a powerful pattern within your mind, and that you are making up fiction every time you open your mouth.  But that doesn't mean you're not doing so.

Tony, this is where I get to tell you that you are making assumptions about the way I think when I role-play. ;)

Do you believe that multiple personality disorder is real and that people can maintain multiple personalites in a single brain?  That's sort of what it's like, only more controlled.

When I'm thinking in character, I'm not "making up fiction every time I open my mouth".  I'm speaking from the thoughts of an independent personality I develop within my head.  To a degree, you can argue that it's not an entirely independent personality because it shares certain traits and limits with me out of necessity (it's using the same wetware and lacks sufficient history to have a full education and history) and I'd agree with you.  However, this sub-personality has it's own thoughts, own emotions, own voice, and has sometimes even developed it's own independent subconscious for me.  I don't think about what my character would do.  I access the characters thoughts as they think about what's going on and they just do what they do, just like I do in the real world.  My characters do things I don't plan.  Other players also experience this, as do authors.  The characters "take on a life of their own", so to speak.

If it makes more sense to think of it this way, I create a "distributed agent" that is a sort of second consciousness for my character.  I can also liken it to a virtual machine, an operating system running inside of an operating system.  

Now, you can fight me about how fictional the character is and whether it's really conscious or not, much as I fought you about whether your thinking is really holistic or simply beyond your understanding, but just as you experience what you do as a holistic thing, I experience thinking in character as a distinct consciousness that has a voice of its own.  The characters think thoughts and do things that I don't consciously plan as a player and see things in ways that I wouldn't personally see them, even if I were carefully planning for my characters by thinking about them.  

When a character I am playing by thinking in character dies, I don't get upset or angry.  I generally feel nothing, especially immediately after the death no matter how emotionally intense the scene leading up to the death was.  Why?  Because the consciousness through which I was thinking about the game and feeling the game ends and I lack a connection to the game.  The "distributed agent" that was my character ceases running.  I've heard other players express similar experiences.

If you want a really good illustration of the distinct personality of the character in action, read this old message by Mary Kuhner:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.frp.advocacy/msg/5aab1b8e54e24cd7?dmode=source

Mary talks about daydreaming in character in a theater.  She gets caught up enough in it that not only does it change her behavior (she behaves in a way that Mary normally wouldn't) but her husband instantly recognizes the character she's thinking as because of her body language.  He knows he's not just looking at his wife.

Quote from: John MorrowTony, this is where I get to tell you that you are making assumptions about the way I think when I role-play. ;)

Do you believe that multiple personality disorder is real and that people can maintain multiple personalites in a single brain?  That's sort of what it's like, only more controlled.

I'm fine with all of that.  My question is much simpler:

Is that personality a part of you?  Are its wants and knowledge parts of you?

Quote from: TonyLBI'm fine with all of that.  My question is much simpler:

Is that personality a part of you?  Are its wants and knowledge parts of you?

What do you mean by "part of you"?

I can say that its wants and knowledge are not always a part of me, to the extent that they are not always accessible to me except in the way that a patient's wants and knowledge are accessible to a psychologist that probes them.  I've had character feel emotions and do things that I didn't understand until I tossed the character on the proverbial couch and psychoanalyzed them.  I often can't just access their thoughts and memories directly and know what's going on.

One example was the character who got paranoid when his memory was erased.  I was actually pretty amazed at how my directive to sequester certain memories from the consciousness of my character changed the way my character looked at the other PC and my character's NPC girlfriend.  I didn't figure that out until I spend hours digging into the character to figure out where the emotions he was experiencing were coming from.  

I've also had epiphanies in character and have gone insane in character.  In one case, I ran a character modeled on a friend and got some valuable insight into why he acted the way he did, but then didn't enjoy playing the character all that much that way because I didn't really like what I was seeing or where the character was going.  The bigotry that my character in the D&D game that I mentioned elsewhere feels for elves is entirely in character.  I could just as easily play a character working for those elves or even an elf in that setting.  But the bigotry of that character is something I can feel in the character when thinking in character.  

Is there some overlap between the character and me?  I'm sure there is just as there is overlap in people with multiple personality disorders between the personalities.  After all, I haven't lived a complete life in character so I have to fill in somehow.  I'm also sure that my characters are limited in some ways to thinking the way I think and so forth and they probably share some of my preferences and biases.  But they are in many other ways quite distinct from me and it's not just me playing myself as my character.

Are they real people?  I'd say they aren't any more than a second personality is.  But in all the ways that matter, they are quite distinct from me and do seem to have their own consciousness in that can think independently of me as the player (I can watch my character thinking at times).  For all intents and purposes, the character is a distinct mind that can think it's own thoughts and feel it's own feelings, even if they have only a fraction of the mind that a real person has.  And the experience that I have is very much that the character thinks independently of me as a player.

ADDED:  FYI, I often don't get a full feel for the character until a few sessions into a campaign.  This is why you'll find the "DAS" (Develop At Start) and "DIP" (Develop In Play) names in the r.g.f.a FAQ as a distinction.  A lot of people who play deeply in character need a few sessions to really flesh out the character because during that time, they are building the internal character model that they think in.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat do you mean by "part of you"?

Well, I thought it was an easy question, but on reflection I suppose it's actually deep philosophy.

What I'm asking is where you choose to draw the borders of your identity.  I can say "This hand is part of me, but this jacket is not."  Similarly, I can (and do) say "This kindness is part of me, and much as I rebel against it this fatalism is part of me as well.  I don't like the fatalism, but it's not like a jacket.  No matter the outside circumstances that fostered it, the emotion itself had its seed in my mind, and however large it's grown it has done that because of the fertile ground I've given it.  It is a part of who I am."

Personally, I draw the borders of my identity to include everything that happens inside of my own head.  Yes, I too have secondary fictional personae that can function independently of my day-to-day persona, but all of those are part of the greater whole that is Me.

So when you ask "Hey, when you're deep into playing Roland, or Zach, or Yoshi, are you acting on your wants and desires as a player?" I know that the answer is yes.  Yeah, those characters do things that surprise the parts of me in charge of driving out to pick up the groceries, but that's not me being surprised by the Other.  That's me being surprised by myself.

But, yeah ... if you want to bring that identity-line inside of your own head and cordon off parts of the process of your brain as being "Other than you," then I suppose that the Player definition as it's proposed would be useful to you.

It sure isn't any use to me, though.  D'you see why?

Quote from: John MorrowADDED:  FYI, I often don't get a full feel for the character until a few sessions into a campaign.  This is why you'll find the "DAS" (Develop At Start) and "DIP" (Develop In Play) names in the r.g.f.a FAQ as a distinction.  A lot of people who play deeply in character need a few sessions to really flesh out the character because during that time, they are building the internal character model that they think in.

I think this applies whether it's develop in play or in-game. FOr the Outbackalypse (http://www.gamecircle.org/modules/wiwimod/index.php?page=Outbackalypse) campaign, I played myself as a character, beginning a little bit competent (as an adventurer) but not very well-motivated to go adventuring, and even though playing myself, it took several sessions to get a handle on the character. That is because real people exist not in a cell by themselves, but in relationship to people and events around them. So, me living a nice peaceful life today is not the same as me surviving through a global collapse and horrible violence. The character develops and changes in response to events; so even if you do create the entire character to begin with, they'll change a lot in play.

That's the problem with all these sorts of attempts to categorise things, real gaming just isn't as clear-cut as that.

Quote from: TonyLBPersonally, I draw the borders of my identity to include everything that happens inside of my own head.  Yes, I too have secondary fictional personae that can function independently of my day-to-day persona, but all of those are part of the greater whole that is Me.

Again, I go back to my question about multiple personality disorders.  Do you believe that a person who has different named personalities are all just one personality with different personae or do you think they are distinct personalities that aren't a part of each other?

Quote from: TonyLBSo when you ask "Hey, when you're deep into playing Roland, or Zach, or Yoshi, are you acting on your wants and desires as a player?" I know that the answer is yes.  Yeah, those characters do things that surprise the parts of me in charge of driving out to pick up the groceries, but that's not me being surprised by the Other.  That's me being surprised by myself.

My characters think things that I wouldn't think and even do things for their own subconscious reasons.  They don't surprise me because I see it as a part of me thinking a certain way.  They surprise me the way another person would surprise me.  Yeah, it's inside my head but it's quite independent of me, John, the player.  It has the proverbial "life of it's own".

Quote from: TonyLBBut, yeah ... if you want to bring that identity-line inside of your own head and cordon off parts of the process of your brain as being "Other than you," then I suppose that the Player definition as it's proposed would be useful to you.

Yes.  The difference between what I'm thinking as Player and what I'm thinking In Character is very distinct to me.  And where I've nudged my characters to behave certain ways, it was very much the Player manipulating the Character and in order to do so successfully, I had to evaluate where to push the character without breaking it.  

Quote from: TonyLBIt sure isn't any use to me, though.  D'you see why?

Yes.  And as such, I'm not sure this whole branch of theory is going to be of much use to you.  It doesn't sound like you really take distinct stances.

That's similar to my feeling about all the hoops people seem to need to jump through to create intense conflicts in Narrativist games.  All of that drama about my anti-elf PC was in a fairly vanilla D&D game that offered no special mechanics to support that sort of drama.  It's just something I have no trouble doing naturally and just flows from having a character engaging the setting like a real place for me.

Quote from: John MorrowI can say that its wants and knowledge are not always a part of me, to the extent that they are not always accessible to me except in the way that a patient's wants and knowledge are accessible to a psychologist that probes them.  I've had character feel emotions and do things that I didn't understand until I tossed the character on the proverbial couch and psychoanalyzed them.  I often can't just access their thoughts and memories directly and know what's going on.

I just wanted to point out that this is no different from the experience of a real person going "on the couch," in the sense that the person often doesn't themselves understand their feelings and actions until they talk it out with the therapist, buddy, spouse, pastor, whatever. A real person experiencing the paranoia of the memory-wiped guy would probably not understand why he was feeling that way any more than you understood why the fictional guy was.

We often surprise ourselves--"wow, I never knew I had it in me." When we screw up or lose our temper, it's rarely because we "mean" to or want to, opr understand why onan analytical level. And certainly great acts of bravery are often not understood until afterward. In a situation of crisis, you act, then ponder.

When Tony talks about "surprising himself" when being surprised by his character. . .he could just as easily express surprise at something he had done out in the "real world," I'm sure. And yes, authors talk of characters surprising them and taking a life of their own, but in a literal, physical sense, it's still the author's thoughts making up things about your character.

I can't be in your head or know how you experience things. So if you insist that it's this or that way, I've gotta take your word for it. But from the outside at least, I see no basis for believing that the "thoughts" of the character don't originate from you.

Peace,
-Joel

Quote from: John MorrowYes.  And as such, I'm not sure this whole branch of theory is going to be of much use to you.  It doesn't sound like you really take distinct stances.

Well now, be fair.  I am advocating for changing the phrasing of the definition in such a way that we can both get some use out of it.  It seems a little facile for you to just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well, if you think like that then clearly terms like this can never have any value for you."  They can have value for me, and I'd like them to.

If we add the bolded words, so that we define Player mode as:     "You make decisions based not only on what your character would know/has see/would want, but also on conscious recognition of 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 consciously use your motivations as part of the decision," ... then that's a term that I can apply importantly to people I play with.  "Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

Quote from: TonyLBWell now, be fair.  I am advocating for changing the phrasing of the definition in such a way that we can both get some use out of it.  It seems a little facile for you to just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well, if you think like that then clearly terms like this can never have any value for you."  They can have value for me, and I'd like them to.

If we add the bolded words, so that we define Player mode as:     "You make decisions based not only on what your character would know/has see/would want, but also on conscious recognition of 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 consciously use your motivations as part of the decision," ... then that's a term that I can apply importantly to people I play with.  "Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

And you do realize I've been agreeing with that addition.  I may not agree with all of your examples - and we may need to delve a little to expound - but I like the addition of conscious for the reasons we've discussed; that is, so people who even deep IC don't separate themselves so fully, can still be considered IC.

The whole idea was to simply draw the line at the intention of using IC knowledge ony when deciding, either as your character or for your character, what to do/say next.

And as someone pointed out (I think James M.) either in this thread or the other, it's very much the IC/OOC distinction. The only problem I have with that verbiage is the "out-of-character" seems to limit you to being...well...out of character.  Whereas Player allows for a decision to include both IC and OOC motivations.

Are we drawing a line?

I think that any combination of these is possible:  I've observed them all.  I've seen people playing the game not-Character/not-Player.  I've seen people playing the game Character/not-Player, and not-Character/Player and Character/Player.

Quote from: TonyLBAre we drawing a line?

I think that any combination of these is possible:  I've observed them all.  I've seen people playing the game not-Character/not-Player.  I've seen people playing the game Character/not-Player, and not-Character/Player and Character/Player.

Not draw a line as in the two are mutually exclusive.  I think I said Player is actually a superset of Character, or something like that.

Simply to distinguish two aspects.  I mean, otherwise, why ask the original question at all.  Or are you really trying to find characteristics that will lead to two stances that will be mutually exclusive?  If you are, I think you will be at it a long time...no offense....

Quote from: TonyLBWell now, be fair.  I am advocating for changing the phrasing of the definition in such a way that we can both get some use out of it.  It seems a little facile for you to just throw your hands up in the air and say "Well, if you think like that then clearly terms like this can never have any value for you."  They can have value for me, and I'd like them to.

If you want to keep working with it, by all means do.  I'm simply saying that it's possible that if you don't split things up into distinct stances, a model that deals with distinct stances might not work for you, at least in terms of figuring out where a decision comes from.  I think you've pretty much said the same thing yourself, so I'm a bit confused why my statement bothered you, especially since it was phrased with a "not sure".

Quote from: TonyLBIf we add the bolded words, so that we define Player mode as:     "You make decisions based not only on what your character would know/has see/would want, but also on conscious recognition of 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 consciously use your motivations as part of the decision," ... then that's a term that I can apply importantly to people I play with.  "Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

That's cool, but I'm not sure the rewording is necessary to make that distinction.

Quote from: TonyLB"Man, get Jen worked up about a combat and you can watch her slip right out of Player mode.  She totally stops recognizing the influence of her own motives ... that's so cool!"

By the way, if you think it's cool for the player to slip out of Player mode, what mode do they go into?  And if that switch is cool, is the switch back not cool?  (Or is it cool either way?)

Quote from: MelinglorI just wanted to point out that this is no different from the experience of a real person going "on the couch," in the sense that the person often doesn't themselves understand their feelings and actions until they talk it out with the therapist, buddy, spouse, pastor, whatever. A real person experiencing the paranoia of the memory-wiped guy would probably not understand why he was feeling that way any more than you understood why the fictional guy was.

No, not really.  Why?  Because the reason the character freaked out was that he lacked the memories to make sense of what was going on.  As the player, I eventually understood what was happening because I did have access to the memories the character no longer had and was able to contrast the character with and without the memories.  That's not something the character could do if they were really put on a couch, unless the therapist knew what the erased memories contained.

I know what you are trying to say here but the answer to the problem was found within the character, not inside of me.

Quote from: MelinglorWe often surprise ourselves--"wow, I never knew I had it in me." When we screw up or lose our temper, it's rarely because we "mean" to or want to, opr understand why onan analytical level. And certainly great acts of bravery are often not understood until afterward. In a situation of crisis, you act, then ponder.

I've had that experience.  It's not the same thing.  In fact, I experience such surprises different as player and in character -- sometimes at the same time.  Things that surprise one don't always surprise the other.  When the character went paranoid, it wasn't a surprise to the character.  It made perfect sense in character.  It was a surprise to the player.

Quote from: MelinglorWhen Tony talks about "surprising himself" when being surprised by his character. . .he could just as easily express surprise at something he had done out in the "real world," I'm sure. And yes, authors talk of characters surprising them and taking a life of their own, but in a literal, physical sense, it's still the author's thoughts making up things about your character.

Have you ever had the experience yourself?  

You experience the world around you and react to it.  There is no "making up things about Melinglor" in that process.   My characters experience the world around them and react to it.  There is no "making up things about my character" in that process unless I impose it on the process on purpose.  

Quote from: MelinglorI can't be in your head or know how you experience things. So if you insist that it's this or that way, I've gotta take your word for it. But from the outside at least, I see no basis for believing that the "thoughts" of the character don't originate from you.

Do you believe that multiple personality disorders are real and that people can actually have multiple distinct personalities, with their own memories, emotions, and ways of reacting to situations, within a single mind?  Or do you think it's all just them an the personalities are just an illusion?  Do you believe that schizophrenic people and people suffering from other insanities actually hear voices in their heads as if people were speaking to them?  

If you find it possible to believe, assuming that you do, that it's possible for the mind of a crazy person to contain multiple distinct personalities and/or distinct voices that are not part of their primary consciousness, then I have to ask why you think it's impossible that a sane person might leverage the capacity of the human mind to have more than one mindspace and more than one voice to play a character in character with a consciousness that is really distinct from the player's?  In other words, crazy people have the ability to create distinct personalities in little compartments in their brain.  Why do you believe a sane person can't do that?

So the basis for believing that the "thoughts" of the character are distinct from the "thoughts" of the player is that there are plenty of mental disorders that make it quite clear that the human brain has the capacity to maintain distinct personalities and consciousnesses in isolation from each other and I claim you don't have to be insane to leverage those capabilities to play a character.

Hi, John!

Ok, the memory-wipe guy may be a bad example because it's hard to imagine a situation like that coming up in real life. But surely this kind of thing does happen in real life, for more mundane reasons? I've certainly dealt with inner emotional processes where I was experiencing bery negative feelings toward someone, or being really erdgy and snappish in a situation, and didn't understand why until I sat down and dissected it later. That's the similarity I was trying to draw on.

When you say the answer lies within the character, not within you, that makes the discussion difficult because the very subject of debate is whether the character is "within you" or something separate.

As far as multiple personalities and schizophrenia and the like, I really don't know. It's outside my experience and I've not researched the issue. So I really couldn't venture to say how "real" the other personalities are, but in one sense I'm not sure that it matters much. That is, whether they're real or just an illusion, it's still all happenig within the person's head, and all originates from that person's psyche, barring something like demonic possession where there's literally another entity dwelling in your head. I'm reminded of the comics character Legion, who's a psychic with multiple personalities, most of which he made up, but one of which is a Palestinian terrorist whose psyche he absorbed. As such, the Palestinian is 'real" and distinct, in a way that the other two are not.

So any multiple personality-type phenomena that occur in your brain, whether the result of mental illness or of "leveraging" your mind to create under controlled conditions, is still part of you, and originates from you, which is what I believe Tony's getting at.

I'm just an interloper, though--merely thought I had an observation that might help clarify things. If it doesn't work for you, no problem; I don't want to siphon your mental energy from the debate at hand.

Peace,
-Joel

Hi!
  I am not sure where it will end up eventually, but where it started did not have to do with voice in literature or meta-game info. It had to do with narrative license.
Actor - No narrative license, the payers control stops where the character's control stops. He can make a char say something or try and do something, but that's where the narrative control ends.
Author - Some narrative license, the player feels like they have some control over the direction and quality of the story being told, but not enough to add anything that is not already established previously.
Director - Lots of narrative license, the player feels like they can add bits and details to the story, environment and their character as needed by what they feel the current story needs.

Example:
Setup:
You are Grognar the Barbarian, you enter a tavern, you see a big rough guy arm wrestling for wagers, a barkeep, a bard telling stories and a mysterious stranger, what do you do?

Actor
  Grognard is a rough and tumble warrior, so he is only going to drink or arm wrestle. even though the player suspects the mysterious stranger is going to be a cool plot hook. But Grognard would never do that...

Author
  Grognard may be a rough and tumble warrior, but no sense wasting time when this mysterious stranger is clearly the way to go...

Director
  Grognard is horny, we'll add a comely barmaid to the scene to spice it up!

  At least that is how I understand it.

Quote from: John MorrowIf you find it possible to believe, assuming that you do, that it's possible for the mind of a crazy person to contain multiple distinct personalities and/or distinct voices that are not part of their primary consciousness, then I have to ask why you think it's impossible that a sane person might leverage the capacity of the human mind to have more than one mindspace and more than one voice to play a character in character with a consciousness that is really distinct from the player's? In other words, crazy people have the ability to create distinct personalities in little compartments in their brain. Why do you believe a sane person can't do that?

Well, crazy people are crazy. Besides that, as I understand it there's considerable controversy over the extent, nature, and very existence of multiple personality disorders.

You're making a very tall claim here. At best, it would seem that if MPD exists, it's connected to severe trauma. You're saying you can invoke that. I think it's reasonable to express scepticism.

Quote from: MelinglorOk, the memory-wipe guy may be a bad example because it's hard to imagine a situation like that coming up in real life. But surely this kind of thing does happen in real life, for more mundane reasons? I've certainly dealt with inner emotional processes where I was experiencing bery negative feelings toward someone, or being really erdgy and snappish in a situation, and didn't understand why until I sat down and dissected it later. That's the similarity I was trying to draw on.

Of course it happens in real life.  But wasn't doing therapy on myself.  I was doing it on my character.  I can tell the difference.

Quote from: MelinglorWhen you say the answer lies within the character, not within you, that makes the discussion difficult because the very subject of debate is whether the character is "within you" or something separate.

The character is both.  It occupies a space inside of my brain alongside of me.  It's also separate in that it has it's own memories, sense of it's world, emotions, thoughts, and sometimes (clearly in that case) even a subconscious.

Quote from: MelinglorAs far as multiple personalities and schizophrenia and the like, I really don't know. It's outside my experience and I've not researched the issue.

Spend a little time looking at it via Google and then come back to this.  I'm not using comic books or TV shows as my example.  You are asking for evidence that two consciousnesses or independent voices can occupy the same brain.  That's the evidence you are looking for.

Quote from: MelinglorSo any multiple personality-type phenomena that occur in your brain, whether the result of mental illness or of "leveraging" your mind to create under controlled conditions, is still part of you, and originates from you, which is what I believe Tony's getting at.

Of course it's a part of me.  It's inside my head.  But it's also independent of my primary self and has thoughts and emotions of it's own.  I'm also hardly the only person who has had this experience.

Quote from: droogWell, crazy people are crazy. Besides that, as I understand it there's considerable controversy over the extent, nature, and very existence of multiple personality disorders.

Of course there is.  There are also people who claim it's natural and there is nothing wrong with it.  Of course there is considerable controversy over what the mind is and whether free will exists, too.  It's not that difficult to argue that a person's normal personality is just an illusion.  How far do you really want to go with this?

Quote from: droogYou're making a very tall claim here. At best, it would seem that if MPD exists, it's connected to severe trauma. You're saying you can invoke that. I think it's reasonable to express scepticism.

I'm not saying that I can invoke MPD.  I'm not saying that I have MPD.  My characters don't take me over.  I'm claiming that those disorders show that the human mind has the capacity to contain more than one personality and consciousness.

If it were just me reporting this, I think you'd have plenty of reason to express skepticism.  But it's not just me.  It's plenty of other role-players, too, that often don't have a lot else in common.  At that point, you can believe we are all delusional, all liars, or maybe there is something to what we experience.  Whatever floats your boat.

QuoteI'm claiming that those disorders show that the human mind has the capacity to contain more than one personality and consciousness.

Petitio principii. We must accept that as a fact before we accept that a sane person even has such a capacity. If I hold that off until being convinced, I must hold your claim off too.

I don't see a lot of roleplayers claiming their experiences are akin to multiple personality disorders, that they somehow access an entirely separate personality. I remain sceptical.

Quote from: droogPetitio principii. We must accept that as a fact before we accept that a sane person even has such a capacity. If I hold that off until being convinced, I must hold your claim off too.

Correct.

Quote from: droogI don't see a lot of roleplayers claiming their experiences are akin to multiple personality disorders, that they somehow access an entirely separate personality. I remain sceptical.

Well, most people don't want to associate what they do with a mental illness because they don't want people to assume they are insane.  My claim is not that immersive role-playing is the same thing.  My claim is that it shows that the claims of immersive role-players are possible.

There are certainly plenty of claims of accessing an separate and distinct personality if you read enough discussions of immersive role-playing, including what some Finish LARPers do (which goes way beyond what I do).

Is the other personality entirely separate?  As I've said elsewhere in this discussion, I'm not sure it is.  I'm sure it borrows plenty of things from me because it simply because it doesn't have a full-featured existence (e.g., I don't play my characters through childhood).  I'm also sure that it shares some of the same capabilities and constraints that I do because it's running on the same hardware. I also don't claim it's as extensive or well developed as my real personality for the same reason.  What I do claim it's separate and distinct and that it has it's own train of thought, it's own emotional responses, it's own interpretations of what's going on, and it's own perspective .

Quote from: droogPetitio principii. We must accept that as a fact before we accept that a sane person even has such a capacity. If I hold that off until being convinced, I must hold your claim off too.

I don't see a lot of roleplayers claiming their experiences are akin to multiple personality disorders, that they somehow access an entirely separate personality. I remain sceptical.

Does it really matter if an immersive role-player really is accessing another personality inside their head or if they only think they do?  What's the point of the distinction outside of philosophy?

Quote from: jhkimDoes it really matter if an immersive role-player really is accessing another personality inside their head or if they only think they do?  What's the point of the distinction outside of philosophy?

Seems to have consequences for the way John frames his arguments. If he only thinks he's doing it, it loses a certain mystique.

Anyway, I like philosophy.

Quote from: jhkimDoes it really matter if an immersive role-player really is accessing another personality inside their head or if they only think they do?  What's the point of the distinction outside of philosophy?

If he only thinks he's doing it then there is the potential to combine his type of fun with meta-game information, possibly creating a better synthesis.  If, however, part of his fun hinges on keeping the secondary persona firewalled then he cannot mix metagame information with that, by any technique, and there's no point in trying.

At least I think that's the main practical consequence.

Quote from: droogSeems to have consequences for the way John frames his arguments. If he only thinks he's doing it, it loses a certain mystique.

So what difference does that make?

Quote from: TonyLB

Quote from: jhkimDoes it really matter if an immersive role-player really is accessing another personality inside their head or if they only think they do? What's the point of the distinction outside of philosophy?

If he only thinks he's doing it then there is the potential to combine his type of fun with meta-game information, possibly creating a better synthesis.  If, however, part of his fun hinges on keeping the secondary persona firewalled then he cannot mix metagame information with that, by any technique, and there's no point in trying.

At least I think that's the main practical consequence.

Seems to me that part of his fun could hinge on either keeping the secondary persona firewalled or simply thinking that there is a secondary persona firewalled.  

I'm an experimentalist -- I'd say have him try it and see if he enjoys it.  If he doesn't enjoy it, then I'd say go back to the drawing board.

Quote from: TonyLBIf he only thinks he's doing it then there is the potential to combine his type of fun with meta-game information, possibly creating a better synthesis.

Why did it seem like you were more frustrated than enlightened by my attempts to probe your holistic decision-making process based on the assumption that maybe you only think it's a holistic process but you are really combining more narrow decisions?  

No matter how many analogies and assurances you give me, I can never be 100% sure that your aren't just fooling yourself.  Maybe your holistic process is just an illusion.  But would it really change anything for you if it were?  Would entertaining that possibility bring you any closer to peering inside of your holistic process at individual decisions made from different perspectives that may or may not even be there?  

What makes you think that entertaining the possibility that what I'm doing is just an illusion will bring me any closer to just inserting meta-game information into what I'm doing if I don't perceive myself as deciding what my character does?

Quote from: TonyLBIf, however, part of his fun hinges on keeping the secondary persona firewalled then he cannot mix metagame information with that, by any technique, and there's no point in trying.

At least I think that's the main practical consequence.

That's a false dilemma.   There is a third option.  Figure out how to manipulate the firewalled persona on the basis of meta-game information.  That's pretty much what I've done with some success.  It may not be as easy or extensive as what you do, but it can and does work for me.

Quote from: jhkimSeems to me that part of his fun could hinge on either keeping the secondary persona firewalled or simply thinking that there is a secondary persona firewalled.

The experience of being another person in an imaginary world is pretty central to what I enjoy about role-playing.  And I'd say that if I had to sacrifice the illusion to work around it, I'd probably be sacrificing much of why I role-play.

Quote from: jhkimI'm an experimentalist -- I'd say have him try it and see if he enjoys it.  If he doesn't enjoy it, then I'd say go back to the drawing board.

What makes people (not necessarily you) think I haven't experimented with how I play?  If I didn't experiment, I wouldn't be able to make the meta-game adjustments that I do make.

The problem is what am I supposed to try?  Am I supposed to introduce meta-game thinking into my process of making decisions for my character?  I don't perceive myself making decisions for my character.  So how do I insert meta-game concerns into a process I can't find?  If I'm doing it, it's subconscious.  

If I could sense myself deciding what my character does (what some people are claiming I'm really doing behind the illusion), I would already know how to use meta-game information to influence the decision.  But I don't have that place to plug it in.  If I try to plug it into the interface I do have, thinking in character (even if it's only an illusion), it doesn't work and breaks what I do.  

It's like trying to find an outlet for a three pronged 110 volt appliance in a two-pronged 220 volt house.  Even if I figure out how to wire the appliance into a 220 volt outlet, it's going to burn out because it's not designed for that voltage.  Maybe there is a 110 volt grounded outlet hiding in the house somewhere or buried behind some drywall but I don't know where it is, or even if it exists and I'm not sure it's worth tearing the house down to look for it.  The solution, if it's going to work at all, is to find an adapter and put it between the appliance and the outlet to allow them to work together.  The other solution is to move into a 110 volt house but then all my 220 volt appliances aren't going to work right.

Quote from: John MorrowSo what difference does that make?

"I'm accessing separate personalities."
VS
"I'm delusional."

Quote from: John MorrowWhy did it seem like you were more frustrated than enlightened by my attempts to probe your holistic decision-making process based on the assumption that maybe you only think it's a holistic process but you are really combining more narrow decisions?

John, I think you're misreading my posting tone here.

I'm not trying to say "Oh, if only he realized that he was like us then he would recognize that the solutions that we apply to our problems will also work for his problems ... and we could all hug puppies together!"

I totally buy that your mental process in gaming is qualitatively different from mine.  You are doing something I wouldn't even know how to attempt.  And as a result of that, some techniques (especially those consciously mixing metagame information into the character decision process) that work for me will not and can not work for you.

John Kim asked why it was important whether you think a different way:  That was my answer to him.  I was trying to help, so please don't take it as an attack.  Accept my assurances that, at worst, it was well-intentioned clumsiness, for which I apologize.

Quote from: jhkimSeems to me that part of his fun could hinge on either keeping the secondary persona firewalled or simply thinking that there is a secondary persona firewalled.

Yes, and it also could actually hinge upon what he ate for breakfast.  But he tells me that it hinges upon keeping the secondary persona actually firewalled, and since he's the one with the best possible knowledge of the situation, I'm going to do my best to accept that, even though it is very different from what I'm familiar with.

Quote from: droog"I'm accessing separate personalities."
VS
"I'm delusional."

If it makes you happier to think of me as delusional, knock yourself out.  There are plenty of other people with the same delusion, then.

Quote from: John MorrowThere are plenty of other people with the same delusion, then.

There are plenty of people who believe in Scientology, too.

Is it your contention, droog, that John is unable to actually wall off the character's personality to the extent that the does - that he can be so deeply in character as to not be able to even consider OOC information?

Translated, that means you are of the opinion that John is either delusional, or doesn't really understand how he plays.

Is that the road you'd like to go down?

Quote from: James J SkachTranslated, that means you are of the opinion that John is either delusional, or doesn't really understand how he plays.

Is that the road you'd like to go down?

Let's just say I'm sceptical. John is essentially making the argument from religious experience (http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/relex.htm).

Quote from: TonyLBJohn, I think you're misreading my posting tone here.

I know people are trying to be helpful by digging for an understanding of what I really, really do and I do understand your point.  I'm simply trying to point out that my frustration at having to explain I'm not delusion and that I really do have a decent idea of what's going on in my own head is, I suspect, not all that unlike your frustration at trying to get me to believe you know what's going on in your head.  

The truth is that I don't think anyone can be 100% certain that what they think is going on in their head really is.  Research on how people make decisions is showing, for example, that a lot of decisions reported as "reasoning -> decision" are really "decision -> rationalization".  That is, the brain makes subconscious decisions and the conscious brain catches up and explains it.  So it's possible that what we're all doing is a subconscious trick that our conscious brain creates a metaphor for or thinks about as a holistic process.  But where does recognizing that get us?  What does it change?  In practice, it doesn't seem to be changing much.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm not trying to say "Oh, if only he realized that he was like us then he would recognize that the solutions that we apply to our problems will also work for his problems ... and we could all hug puppies together!"

I got that.  No problem.

Quote from: TonyLBI totally buy that your mental process in gaming is qualitatively different from mine.  You are doing something I wouldn't even know how to attempt.  And as a result of that, some techniques (especially those consciously mixing metagame information into the character decision process) that work for me will not and can not work for you.

Correct, and vice versa.  But even if the mental process I'm describing is simply a delusion -- my brain's metaphor for something else that's really going on -- and even if I acknowledge that as a possibility or even what I'm probably doing, it doesn't change the fact that I think about things and manipulate the thoughts in my head a certain way as far as my conscious thoughts about it are concerned.  

For the difference to be a difference, I'd not only have to recognize that I'm not maintaining distinct personalities in my head but I'd have to understand what I really am doing.  And the process of doing that could tear down what I'm doing only to find out that the alternative isn't a lot of fun for me.

Quote from: TonyLBJohn Kim asked why it was important whether you think a different way:  That was my answer to him.  I was trying to help, so please don't take it as an attack.  Accept my assurances that, at worst, it was well-intentioned clumsiness, for which I apologize.

I wasn't taking it as an attack.  I was simply trying to explain my frustration at the question and why I think simply acknowledging that it could be a delusion isn't going to be helpful.

Quote from: droogLet's just say I'm sceptical. John is essentially making the argument from religious experience (http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pages/relex.htm).

If you've looked into philosophy of the mind and current research into how the brain works while it thinks, you'd realize that it's all an argument from religious experience.

Quote from: droogThere are plenty of people who believe in Scientology, too.

You might want to check appeal to ridicule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule).

Quote from: John MorrowFor the difference to be a difference, I'd not only have to recognize that I'm not maintaining distinct personalities in my head but I'd have to understand what I really am doing. And the process of doing that could tear down what I'm doing only to find out that the alternative isn't a lot of fun for me.

Well, maybe you should stop talking about imponderables like what's inside your head.

I certainly don't want you to stop having fun your way. I don't even want you to examine it if you don't want to. But there's no debate here. It's a mystical cloud.

Quote from: TonyLBYes, and it also could actually hinge upon what he ate for breakfast.  But he tells me that it hinges upon keeping the secondary persona actually firewalled, and since he's the one with the best possible knowledge of the situation, I'm going to do my best to accept that, even though it is very different from what I'm familiar with.

Here's what happens if bad information is introduced into the process or if I try to inject meta-game information into the process.

Somehow and somewhere in the process, I used all of the information that I imagine the character experiencing, knowing, feeling, and so forth and combine that with how I understand the game world works from the character's perspective (often a combination of setting information, how the game as gone so far, and sometimes the rules as a representation of the physics and what's possible) and, as what you might refer to as a holistic process, an answer pops out.  It's not a decision in the conscious sense.  

If I introduce bad information into that process (e.g., conflicting information or something like a continuity error), one of two things happens.  In some cases, the process crashes because it can't make sense of the input.  I realize something is wrong with the data.  In some cases, the bad information gets forced to fit and my in character understanding of the setting gets warped in the process, which can have bad long-term consequences, including character insanity.  But I'm very sensitive to things like continuity errors or a game setting that says one thing (e.g., Orcs are dangerous) and rules that say something else (e.g., Orcs are really not all that dangerous in combat).  Keran describes a similar problem in the other thread by realizing that their character had broken an in character constraint.

If I try to introduce meta-game information into the process, it usually breaks entirely because the meta-game information relies on information that has no meaning inside of the game setting or to the character in order to make sense.   "If I attack this other PC, I'll destroy the game," can't be incorporated into a character perspective because "PC" and "game" has no meaning to the character.  "If you don't take this call to adventure, there won't be a fun game tonight," can't be incorporated into a character perspective because the idea of going on discreet adventures, that my character has some obligation to do so, and the players who will have their fun destroyed, has no meaning to the character.

So regardless of what I'm really doing, the process hinges around imagining the character's perspective and emotions to figure out what they'd do.  Meta-game information just doesn't have a place where it will fit in the process of "imagining the character's perspective".

Quote from: droogWell, maybe you should stop talking about imponderables like what's inside your head.

Well, it's kinda difficult to explain what I'm doing or why stuff doesn't work for me without at least taking a stab at it.

Quote from: droogI certainly don't want you to stop having fun your way. I don't even want you to examine it if you don't want to. But there's no debate here. It's a mystical cloud.

And that's fine.  You can certainly look at it that way.  But that also means giving up on trying to ever understand it.  While that makes sense in some cases, sometimes it is possible to achieve some understanding by talking through it.

Quote from: droogWell, maybe you should stop talking about imponderables like what's inside your head.

droog:  What the fuck?  Did an immersionist piss in your cheerios or something?  The things happening inside our heads ... that's the topic of conversation here.  If you don't like it then just don't read the thread.  But saying that your subjective opinions (for instance ... power struggles, wasn't it?) are worthy of investigation but any other opinions are mere unfounded mysticism ... that's bullshit, man.

Man.  A bunch of us were having a perfectly reasonable, productive conversation here.  Are you proud of the nasty, sniping, ad hominem level that you've been trying to drag it down to?

Quote from: John Morrowand, as what you might refer to as a holistic process, an answer pops out.  It's not a decision in the conscious sense.

... and ...

Quote from: John MorrowSo regardless of what I'm really doing, the process hinges around imagining the character's perspective and emotions to figure out what they'd do.  Meta-game information just doesn't have a place where it will fit in the process of "imagining the character's perspective".

So let me feed my understanding of this back, and you can tell me whether I've got what sounds like a decent understanding, or if I'm missing some critical things:
   Character decisions and actions emerge (without further intervention) from the interplay of the various pieces of your character (their perceptions as you understand them, their memories, their abilities, their attitudes, etc., etc.)  The process between "the character model in my head" and "the things the character will do" doesn't break down into any further components ... from that point, all the pieces operating are tightly intertwined, and can't be pulled free (to examine them) without destroying their function.  Holistic.

The nature of this process is such that meta-game information doesn't fit in it.  Trying to make it fit would be like trying to attach lincoln logs to legos.  They may both serve similar purposes, but those pieces just aren't built to connect in the same way.

What you can do (and, in fact, do) is to use the metagame information to inform your role as a gatekeeper between the actual words and narration at the table, and the mental picture that you feed in to your character model.  When you are told "The waitress gives you a sly wink," you decide whether to read that as charming and jovial, or instead to read it as malevolent and deceitful.  By changing those perceptions, you change the perceived world that your character is operating in, and thereby change the actions that arise from them in interaction with that world.If I've got that right, let me just say first of all that that sounds like hard work.  Operating at that many removes ... changing the perceptions you feed in and just hoping that it will get the results you want.  Wow.  Tough stuff.  You have my admiration for pulling it off with (I assume) finesse and panache.

It also sounds fascinating, in a well nigh post-modern sense.  If you've got five people at the table operating that way then you've got five different worlds being imagined ... not merely because of the differences that crop up naturally, but also because of a deliberate process of redaction and reinterpretation that each player is applying to the world at every stage of narration.  That's cool!

Quote from: TonyLBMan.  A bunch of us were having a perfectly reasonable, productive conversation here.  Are you proud of the nasty, sniping, ad hominem level that you've been trying to drag it down to?

I don't think I've made an ad hominem at any stage, Tony. I would like to be able to speak my opinion on the matter.

I'll assert right here that power is something that can be studied and discussed. Short of extensive psychological testing (and perhaps the measurement of brain activity), there's bugger-all anybody can do to determine the objective truth of John's claims. That makes them irrelevant. What it boils down to is that John doesn't like anything he regards as a meta-game element. No Director Stance, thanks.

Can you not see that John has made your conversation all about the contents of his head? What's productive about that? We get it, already!


[But I'll step off now. Have fun.]

Fucking Australians...

EDIT: Perhaps I should explain.  I've got a thing with JimBob about his casual slams at the US. He's from Australia.  droog, too, is from Australia.  Both JimBob and droog have now come into threads in which I, and others, are having perfectly reasonable conversations about things that obviously interest us enough to continue for the sole purpose of telling us the conversation we're having is worthless - because they think so.

I'm now going to use Australians as shorthand for people who are so attention starved and self-centered as to feel the need to act as JimBob and droog have acted.

Nothing to see here, move along....

OK, so going after the Character and Player concepts, with the filters/masks concepts....

Don't classify the decisions, per se, classify the filters.  Some filters are external to the character, some are internal, some might be both(?).

Then categorize the decision based on what filters were applied...

So someone in Character stance is always only applying Character filters...

make any sense at all?

Quote from: TonyLB... and ...
So let me feed my understanding of this back, and you can tell me whether I've got what sounds like a decent understanding, or if I'm missing some critical things:
   Character decisions and actions emerge (without further intervention) from the interplay of the various pieces of your character (their perceptions as you understand them, their memories, their abilities, their attitudes, etc., etc.)  The process between "the character model in my head" and "the things the character will do" doesn't break down into any further components ... from that point, all the pieces operating are tightly intertwined, and can't be pulled free (to examine them) without destroying their function.  Holistic.

The nature of this process is such that meta-game information doesn't fit in it.  Trying to make it fit would be like trying to attach lincoln logs to legos.  They may both serve similar purposes, but those pieces just aren't built to connect in the same way.

What you can do (and, in fact, do) is to use the metagame information to inform your role as a gatekeeper between the actual words and narration at the table, and the mental picture that you feed in to your character model.  When you are told "The waitress gives you a sly wink," you decide whether to read that as charming and jovial, or instead to read it as malevolent and deceitful.  By changing those perceptions, you change the perceived world that your character is operating in, and thereby change the actions that arise from them in interaction with that world.

I think that's essentially correct.

Quote from: TonyLBIf I've got that right, let me just say first of all that that sounds like hard work.

That's OK.  What you do seems like hard work to me. :)

Quote from: TonyLBOperating at that many removes ... changing the perceptions you feed in and just hoping that it will get the results you want.  Wow.  Tough stuff.  You have my admiration for pulling it off with (I assume) finesse and panache.

It's not so much hard as delicate.  It can break down easily (though more easily for some than others).  You'll hear that from people who play from that perspective a lot.  It's why we can sound so militant about keeping the meta-game out of sight and why verisimilitude issues can be so important.  As long as it's not being disrupted, I think it's actually very easy and natural to do.  

As for the finesse and panache, when it's working right, it's a wonderful experience but it doesn't always work right.  And the reality of game pacing, eating Cheetos, and talking about what was on Dr. Who last week means that we do our share of not being in character and just chatting and stuff.  That's why I agreed with JimBobOz's assessment that what my group does probably wouldn't look too different than what other groups do, other than a slower pace and a greater obsession over details.  

In my primary group, we play 12 hour sessions.  Only a part of that time is spent doing deep role-playing stuff.  There are times when I'm out of character or doing something else because my character is off screen and combat, for me, is more of a tactical exercise than a role-playing exercise.  So it's not all deep IC play for me.  It's not that we have 3 hours of fun in 12 hours or anything like that.  It's usually all fun, even the socializing about the TV shows that were on during the previous week or whatever, since I play with friends I like.  It's just that it's not all deep role-playing in character fun.

The D&D game was 3-4 hour sessions.  That was a lot more focused and had a much higher percentage of role-playing to total play time.  We didn't have as much time to mess around if we actually wanted the game to progress.  Sometimes most of the session was spent IC for me.

There are groups that don't drop out of character for much of anything and almost everything the players say is in character.  I'm not sure how I'd handle that intensity or inability to switch into player perspective to make comments.

Quote from: TonyLBIt also sounds fascinating, in a well nigh post-modern sense.  If you've got five people at the table operating that way then you've got five different worlds being imagined ... not merely because of the differences that crop up naturally, but also because of a deliberate process of redaction and reinterpretation that each player is applying to the world at every stage of narration.  That's cool!

Well, there is the way I look at the game world and the way my character looks at the game world and the two different perspectives can co-exist side-by-side.  As a player, I have a much more omniscient perspective than the character does.

For example, I've had a characters develop beliefs about the game world that I think (or even know) were not correct and I've observed my characters doing stupid things that I know were stupid but the character thought they made sense.  In once instance (and I don't even remember the details at the moment), I told the GM what my character's speculation was and the GM told me I was wrong.  The character continued to believe it, though.

So there could be five people around the table and ten different worlds being imagined.  And then there is Mary Kuhner.  She's figured out how to play multiple characters in the same game immersively in one-on-one games with her husband.  So she might be holding 6 or 7 perspectives of the same game world in her head at once.

Quote from: James J Skachmake any sense at all?

Yes, but I proposed the model. :)

I'm curious if it does anything for Tony.

Quote from: James J SkachOK, so going after the Character and Player concepts, with the filters/masks concepts....

Don't classify the decisions, per se, classify the filters.  Some filters are external to the character, some are internal, some might be both(?).

Then categorize the decision based on what filters were applied...

So someone in Character stance is always only applying Character filters...

make any sense at all?

It makes sense having absorbed this multi-page conversation.  Will it make sense to somebody who hasn't read that?  Or are we in danger of creating a theory that cannot be explained without referring people to a mass of previous discussion?

Quote from: TonyLBSo let me feed my understanding of this back, and you can tell me whether I've got what sounds like a decent understanding, or if I'm missing some critical things:
   Character decisions and actions emerge (without further intervention) from the interplay of the various pieces of your character (their perceptions as you understand them, their memories, their abilities, their attitudes, etc., etc.)  The process between "the character model in my head" and "the things the character will do" doesn't break down into any further components ... from that point, all the pieces operating are tightly intertwined, and can't be pulled free (to examine them) without destroying their function.  Holistic.

The nature of this process is such that meta-game information doesn't fit in it.  Trying to make it fit would be like trying to attach lincoln logs to legos.  They may both serve similar purposes, but those pieces just aren't built to connect in the same way.

What you can do (and, in fact, do) is to use the metagame information to inform your role as a gatekeeper between the actual words and narration at the table, and the mental picture that you feed in to your character model.  When you are told "The waitress gives you a sly wink," you decide whether to read that as charming and jovial, or instead to read it as malevolent and deceitful.  By changing those perceptions, you change the perceived world that your character is operating in, and thereby change the actions that arise from them in interaction with that world.If I've got that right, let me just say first of all that that sounds like hard work.  Operating at that many removes ... changing the perceptions you feed in and just hoping that it will get the results you want.  Wow.  Tough stuff.  You have my admiration for pulling it off with (I assume) finesse and panache.

It also sounds fascinating, in a well nigh post-modern sense.  If you've got five people at the table operating that way then you've got five different worlds being imagined ... not merely because of the differences that crop up naturally, but also because of a deliberate process of redaction and reinterpretation that each player is applying to the world at every stage of narration.  That's cool!

That sounds roughly right to me, except that your "hard work" comment seems misguided.  You suggest that someone who plays this way is just hoping to get the results that he wants -- which is quite different from my experience.  

In my experience, it is pretty reliable given good circumstances.  Note that what I want isn't a particular plotline or story.  i.e. I'm certainly not feeding in inputs on the hope of getting a particular plot.  That sounds like it would be extremely hard work and probably frustrating as well.  But I'm not looking for particular output.  

Also, I'm curious about how you operate now.  To me, the gatekeeper function is pretty natural, and I do it even for non-immersive games.  i.e. When I hear "The waitress gives you a sly wink," I form a mental image of the waitress and her action -- whether deceitful or jovial.  Later on, I probably won't remember the words said, but I'll instead remember my mental image.  Do you not do that?  Does it just stay as bare words to you?

Quote from: jhkimIn my experience, it is pretty reliable given good circumstances.  Note that what I want isn't a particular plotline or story.  i.e. I'm certainly not feeding in inputs on the hope of getting a particular plot.  That sounds like it would be extremely hard work and probably frustrating as well.  But I'm not looking for particular output.

Fair enough, and if you're not looking for that then you're no operating at the same sort of removes.  I though that John M. said that he did do that kind of thing, and that's what I was addressing.  I certainly don't think that "jiggering the perceptual input to the character to nudge them in certain metagame ways" is a necessity of immersive play.  It's one technique (and I sure would love to hear others, too!) for addressing the metagame while maintaining immersion.

Quote from: jhkimAlso, I'm curious about how you operate now.  To me, the gatekeeper function is pretty natural, and I do it even for non-immersive games.  i.e. When I hear "The waitress gives you a sly wink," I form a mental image of the waitress and her action -- whether deceitful or jovial.  Later on, I probably won't remember the words said, but I'll instead remember my mental image.  Do you not do that?  Does it just stay as bare words to you?

I'll form a mental image, but until that gets put into action it's a first draft.  I remember what was said, too, in case I decide to reinterpret the words to get a more useful image.

But then, eventually, after I've layered enough actions on that foundation, what I remember is what motives my character derived from it, and I forget the original entirely.  At some point, you ask my character "Why is it that you took such an immediate dislike to that waitress?" and all he (or I) can answer is "Bwuh?  She's ... she's CREEPY, man!  Don't you see it?"

Quote from: TonyLBIt makes sense having absorbed this multi-page conversation.  Will it make sense to somebody who hasn't read that?  Or are we in danger of creating a theory that cannot be explained without referring people to a mass of previous discussion?

I suppose the depends on whether or not we can define the filters properly.

I mean, it's not like we're publishing a theory or something ;)

Quote from: John MorrowYes, but I proposed the model. :)

I'm curious if it does anything for Tony.

Is it?  I mean, I remember you saying you like the idea of filters and/or masks...

It looks like whatever the source, Tony is in semi-agreement...

And everyone knows that three people in agreement means these concepts will automatically apply universally to every RPG and RPG player out there. :D

Quote from: TonyLBFair enough, and if you're not looking for that then you're no operating at the same sort of removes.  I though that John M. said that he did do that kind of thing, and that's what I was addressing.

To clarify, I'm not so much interested in working toward a particular plot-line, story, or even a particular outcome.  My ambition is a bit more basic.  I'm looking to avoid directions that will wreck the game for the other players and, more rarely, to push my character in a direction that will make the game run more smoothly.  So it's often more about making sure the character doesn't go down a certain path (perhaps why I see it as a "filter" or "mask" that excludes options) than about pushing the character down some other path.

But there is no reason why the technique I described couldn't be used for story or plot purposes.

I think you might end up with a perspective that viewed story differently though, and that would be cool.

Remember how I said (somewhere or other) that making a character who retreats from their troubles rather than addressing them is a good path to tragedy?  Well, that's true, but it's looking at the question from the perspective of how choices lead to outcomes.

I wonder what it would look like for someone who looked at the question from the perspective of how perception leads to outcomes.  They'd have useful things to say about what ways of looking at the world lead to tragedy.  That's stuff I'd be pretty interested to hear, really.

Quote from: TonyLBFair enough, and if you're not looking for that then you're no operating at the same sort of removes.  I though that John M. said that he did do that kind of thing, and that's what I was addressing.  I certainly don't think that "jiggering the perceptual input to the character to nudge them in certain metagame ways" is a necessity of immersive play.  It's one technique (and I sure would love to hear others, too!) for addressing the metagame while maintaining immersion.

I should clarify.  I have done things like changing the perceptual input of the character to nudge them certain ways.  However, it is rare and not a primary part of what I'm trying to get out of a game session.  It's most often to avoid a basic problem like splitting irrevocably with the other PCs, killing another PC, or some such.  

Quote from: TonyLBI'll form a mental image, but until that gets put into action it's a first draft.  I remember what was said, too, in case I decide to reinterpret the words to get a more useful image.

But then, eventually, after I've layered enough actions on that foundation, what I remember is what motives my character derived from it, and I forget the original entirely.  At some point, you ask my character "Why is it that you took such an immediate dislike to that waitress?" and all he (or I) can answer is "Bwuh?  She's ... she's CREEPY, man!  Don't you see it?"

The eventual product sounds pretty similar.  I guess a difference might be how long the first draft period is, and how often you do rewrites of what you picture (i.e. second drafts as opposed to first).  That seems like a qualitative difference, and I'm not sure how one would characterize it.  Obviously there a period from when you first hear it that you might have some questions.  If I go on to interact with the waitress there, I would be likely to revise my mental image a few times.  In a highly interactive scene like a combat where everyone's taking actions in the same place, my mental picture usually goes through a lot of revisions, for example.  ("Wait, that's a _wooden_ table?  Oh.  I was picturing it as metal.")

Quote from: James J SkachFucking Australians...

I don't know about JB, but for me it's a little bit personal. John argued at me on another thread for page after page that I didn't really know what I was doing. He impugned my competence and truthfulness. He refused to accept my account of events.

Okay, have it back – in spades. At least I was talking about events that could, in principle, be verified. John is talking about voices in his head.

droog:  Have I done something to you that warrants your disrupting my ability to have a discussion?  Because you're not just effecting John, you're effecting everyone who is trying to have a conversation here.  And I'd be awfully surprised to discover that we'd all mistreated you.

Quote from: TonyLB... and ...
So let me feed my understanding of this back, and you can tell me whether I've got what sounds like a decent understanding, or if I'm missing some critical things:
   Character decisions and actions emerge (without further intervention) from the interplay of the various pieces of your character (their perceptions as you understand them, their memories, their abilities, their attitudes, etc., etc.)  The process between "the character model in my head" and "the things the character will do" doesn't break down into any further components ... from that point, all the pieces operating are tightly intertwined, and can't be pulled free (to examine them) without destroying their function.  Holistic.

The nature of this process is such that meta-game information doesn't fit in it.  Trying to make it fit would be like trying to attach lincoln logs to legos.  They may both serve similar purposes, but those pieces just aren't built to connect in the same way.

I'd say these are true for me too.

Immersible characters' decisions and reactions don't appear to get made in any different manner from my own decisions and reactions.  Sometimes I can explain them, but with no more precision and accuracy than I can explain my own: if I tell you why I did something you'll understand that my best description of  in words still won't catch all the experience I'm consciously aware of, and that furthermore there are apt to be elements I'm not conscious of.  Comes a point where the same philosophical questions turn up -- to what extent does what I am determine what I do, or what I do determine what I am?  There are places where I can't answer those questions for me, or can't even distinguish between what I do and what I am; and that also happens for immersible characters.

QuoteWhat you can do (and, in fact, do) is to use the metagame information to inform your role as a gatekeeper between the actual words and narration at the table, and the mental picture that you feed in to your character model.  When you are told "The waitress gives you a sly wink," you decide whether to read that as charming and jovial, or instead to read it as malevolent and deceitful.  By changing those perceptions, you change the perceived world that your character is operating in, and thereby change the actions that arise from them in interaction with that world.

It's sounding so far as if John does this routinely and as standard operating procedure, without experiencing it as an interruption, whereas my closest approaches to this I definitely experience as conscious interruptions in the deep IC state.

QuoteIf I've got that right, let me just say first of all that that sounds like hard work.  Operating at that many removes ... changing the perceptions you feed in and just hoping that it will get the results you want.  Wow.  Tough stuff.  You have my admiration for pulling it off with (I assume) finesse and panache.

It's demanding and restrictive in one way, but I experience it as a relief in another.   The quality of my mostly conscious inventions and play is unimpressive; they tend to feel arbitrary and flat to me if they remain matters of conscious manipulation, and it's like Sisyphus' boulder-rolling to create.  While I don't always achieve what I want channelling, I can pretty much guarantee an absence of finesse and panache if what I begin consciously doesn't sooner or later move to the subconscious.  Like note-by-note one-fingered piano-playing: that's not a bad analogy for it.

QuoteIt also sounds fascinating, in a well nigh post-modern sense.  If you've got five people at the table operating that way then you've got five different worlds being imagined ... not merely because of the differences that crop up naturally, but also because of a deliberate process of redaction and reinterpretation that each player is applying to the world at every stage of narration.  That's cool!

Well, I have at least two, in a case where I've achieved immersive play: my view and the character's.  I've never done anything like Mary Kuhner and immersed in multiple perspectives in a session.  This may partly be because immersion, for me, is a lot less fragile than it tends to be for some people -- once I get there, it's grabby, in the sense that I can have difficulty getting one character to relinquish the hardware so I can load something else: it takes time for me to completely unload the mindset.  This is particularly noticeable in cases where I'm only playing and not running.

In a game I was in a couple of years ago, for various reasons I ended up starting play with a character who was imprisoned.  The villain was threatening his wife and children in an effort to make him do something morally intolerable, that would have destroyed his people, whom he felt strongly obligated to protect; and my character wasn't a man who easily tolerated forced inactivity or passivity, but there wasn't anything he could do to escape.  I had amazingly strong immersion with this character, and it quickly developed that he decided that the only thing he could do, the thing he was bound to do, was kill himself if he possibly could.  Dead, he was of no use to the villain, and it would remove the motive for the villain to target his wife and children specifically.  Dead, he could not be brought to destroy his own people.  So I picked up the character and shortly found him climbing the walls from the forced inactivity and fear for his family, and, with utterly grim determination, planning to splinter some wood he had access to in order to make a stabbing point he could fall on and drive through his heart, there being no better method at hand.

And here's the thing -- OOCly, I knew a rescue was coming.  And I had expected that knowing that would make the character's situation tolerable -- I thought I'd get some OOC --> IC bleedthrough, and I have no problem watching other people's sessions until my turn comes around, until the other PCs got to the point where they could spring my character.  But it didn't happen that way.

I usually think about the game and the characters when I'm not playing, and mostly that's fine, even helpful, because I can bring new insight to the next session.  But in this case, it started to drive me up the wall, because I'd find myself (as is a common case) thinking IC when my mind was otherwise unoccupied.  Meaning, I'd be trying to go to sleep, and my bloody subconscious would spring grim, determined, desperate Valen on me.  Now I could have suppressed the character altogether, but I didn't really want to do that because I was going to play him.  So I ended up asking the GM to move the rescue up as much as he could, so I didn't have to keep that particular frame of mind around for longer than necessary.

This, and the strength of another reaction when I was only playing, is making it look as if the reason I don't tend to react as strongly as this when I'm GMing isn't so much OOC --> IC bleedthrough as it is simple distraction: I can never dive so deep when I'm GMing, can never spend so much time IC without breaking the mindset to deal with metaworld issues like pacing, spotlight, other NPCs, resolutions, etc.

In this particular case, something I thought would serve as a filter mitigating the character's reactions didn't work.

Quote from: TonyLBdroog: Have I done something to you that warrants your disrupting my ability to have a discussion? Because you're not just effecting John, you're effecting everyone who is trying to have a conversation here. And I'd be awfully surprised to discover that we'd all mistreated you.

Well, I said I was going to leave it alone, but then James felt compelled to get involved. So I thought I'd set the record straight for the benefit of my fellow Australians.

In point of fact, I was originally having a tangential but related conversation with John Morrow when you felt the need to stick your oar in. Now you've done it again, compelling me to reply to you.

Over and out.

Yes, it's my fault you came in here and shit all over our conversation...because I pointed it out after the fact...

There's a small problem of the space time continuum you have to adjust to get the right cause/effect, but that's small beans...

EDIT: I was already involved - in the conversation.  So spare me the melodramtic "compelled to get involved."

Quote from: James J SkachYes, it's my fault you came in here and shit all over our conversation...because I pointed it out after the fact...

Uh uh. As I said to Tony, I was taking up a related point with John, when he came in and berated me (#144). That's when the shitting might be said to have begun. Then in #147 you waded in.

The conversation with Keran appears to be proceeding just fine. Maybe you and Tony should just butt out?

If you want to have a private conversation with someone, then don't use a forum - use private messaging, email, or instant messenger programs. By posting to a public forum you are implicitly asking for public input.

Some of the public comments will not be of interest to you. Some may even say that your discussion is a waste of time, and based on absurdities. You can't really complain about that, and say, "then why come and comment? Can't you just let us chat about this thing?" If it's absurd, people will want to point it out.

"Here on this thread we are discussing the Flat Earth, and whether it's square or round."
"What the fuck? The Earth isn't flat!"
"Look, this is a thread for people who think the Earth is flat, so why do you feel the need to tell us that it isn't?"

People like to point out what they think are absurdities. You shouldn't reject those people, you should welcome them. Either your ideas are absurd, in which case you should welcome being told so and correct your absurdities; or else your ideas are sensible and well-founded, in which case you should welcome the chance to develop and strengthen your ideas by explaining them to a sceptic.

"Here on this thread we are discussing the Round Earth, and whether it's perfectly spherical or a big egg-shaped."
"What the fuck? The Earth isn't round!"
"Look, this is a thread for people who think the Earth is round, so why do feel the need to tell us that it isn't?"

The Flat-Earther's absurd ideas will be revealed by discussion with non-believers, and the Round-Earther's good ideas will be developed and strengthened by discussion with non-believers. Whether your ideas are good or bad, they'll be improved by discussion with sceptics. Welcome sceptics.

If you only want to talk to other Flat- or Round-Earthers, and not be interrupted by unbelievers, then you should use email, PM or IM. It's a public forum.

Quote from: droogI don't know about JB, but for me it's a little bit personal. John argued at me on another thread for page after page that I didn't really know what I was doing. He impugned my competence and truthfulness. He refused to accept my account of events.

So, really, this is all about carrying a chip on your shoulder from thread to thread.  Dude, you've got a major ego problem.  Do I need to remember to talk to you like a 12 year-old so you don't get your feeling hurt?  

Quote from: droogOkay, have it back – in spades. At least I was talking about events that could, in principle, be verified. John is talking about voices in his head.

Who are you trying to impress, exactly?

See what I mean - Fucking Australians.

JimBob, that is the biggest fuckwad argument I think I've ever seen you make.  you think it's OK for someone to just waltz in to a fine conversation and call someone delusional? It would be polite in society to just poke into a conversation and call someone a nutcase?

So if three people were standing on the street corner talking about whether the flat earth was round or square, you'd feel it was alright to just poke your nose into their business and call them idiots?  And you think Americans are obnoxious?

So, we have relative agreement on the filters and the two stances, how does Director fit in.  Is it even necessary?  Is it the process of only applying Player filters?

Quote from: John MorrowSo, really, this is all about carrying a chip on your shoulder from thread to thread.  

Gone now. I remain sceptical, however: that's very real.

Quote from: James J SkachSo if three people were standing on the street corner talking about whether the flat earth was round or square, you'd feel it was alright to just poke your nose into their business and call them idiots?  And you think Americans are obnoxious?

This is not a street corner.

Quote from: droogGone now. I remain sceptical, however: that's very real.

And you'll notice that when you made a serious argument, I gave you a serious reply.  Your skepticism is legitimate.

Quote from: droogThis is not a street corner.

OK, it's a party - and they are people you barely know, if at all.  Isn't that really the case here?  I mean, do you know John - enough to call him delusional?

You came in because you had a hardon from another thread.  I've done the same.  But I can honestly say I never called into question the object of my ire's mental health.

Quote from: James J SkachSee what I mean - Fucking Australians.

Is there a reason why you are pouring gasoline on the fire?

In both JimBobOz's and droog's defense, this is a public forum and I consider it a feature that this site doesn't have the heavy-handed moderation that many other role-playing discussion groups have.  Sometimes, that means there will be flame wars, nasty comments, and so on.  I'd rather that than a band of moderators dishing out warnings and suspensions, deleting messages, moving threads into other topic areas, and banning people.  This isn't a "safe place" where offensive comments get people banned.  I consider that a feature, not a bug.

The core of droog's complaints were legitimate and there is nothing wrong with being skeptical.  The Scientology comment was unwarranted and the tone was less than friendly, but in the big scheme of things, it was pretty mild.

Quote from: James J SkachSo, we have relative agreement on the filters and the two stances, how does Director fit in.  Is it even necessary?  Is it the process of only applying Player filters?

Suppose you have a GM who does his level best to portray how the environment and characters (as they pre-exist) would react to the actions of the PCs.  Is that analogous to Character mode?

Quote from: James J SkachOK, it's a party - and they are people you barely know, if at all.  Isn't that really the case here?  I mean, do you know John - enough to call him delusional?

He thinks I unfairly judged his relationship with some friends in another thread.  It wasn't my intent, I think he's reading things into what I said that aren't there, and I think he's making a mountain out of a mole hill but that's life.  If you put information about your gaming group into an online discussion as a piece of anecdotal evidence, I think examining that evidence, asking questions about it, and offering suggestions is fair game.  And it's also fair game for him to be skeptical about my claims.

Quote from: James J SkachYou came in because you had a hardon from another thread.  I've done the same.  But I can honestly say I never called into question the object of my ire's mental health.

For whatever it's worth, James McMurray started a thread called "Deep IC" i n the main forum and said, "A thread over in Game Theory talks about Deep Immersion In Character as a state wherein you think as the character. Isn't that one of the many flavors of insanity?"

Yes, it sounds a bit unbelievable and even a bit crazy.  I'm not really surprised when people react that way, nor am I offended.

Quote from: TonyLBSuppose you have a GM who does his level best to portray how the environment and characters (as they pre-exist) would react to the actions of the PCs.  Is that analogous to Character mode?

This is where it goes back to the fundamental world-based vs. meta-game divide.  If the GM is playing NPCs from their perspective (either thinking about what they'd do or thinking as the NPC), that's the GM equivalent of character mode.  Having the environment react as if it's a real place is a sibling to Character mode.  I'd probably call it World mode.  And World mode can be made accessible to the players.  For example, if I forgot to list a toolkit on my character sheet for a mechanic, I might declare that my character has a toolkit during play because, as a mechanic, he'd logically have a toolkit.  Another example is the character that tells the GM, "I go to the inn and get a room," in a traditional fantasy city.  The player simply assumes that there will be an inn where his character can get a room.

Quote from: James J SkachSo if three people were standing on the street corner talking about whether the flat earth was round or square, you'd feel it was alright to just poke your nose into their business and call them idiots?  And you think Americans are obnoxious?

This place isn't three people standing on a corner; those three people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, since people have private discussions in the street all the time. It's a public forum.

"forum" gets definitions like,

"a public meeting or assembly for open discussion",
"Meeting or part of meeting set aside for an open discussion by recognized participants on subjects of public interests",
"A general discussion area for a free exchange of ideas, thoughts, and comments",

and so on. Comes from pretty early historically,

"Main square or marketplace of a Roman town. In Roman towns in Greek lands, the Greek term agora is often used instead. The forum was often surrounded by the most important governmental institutions such as a curia building, temple to Jupiter Capitolium, basilica or other such structures." The Romans used to just stand up there and make speeches, and they expected to get responses from the general public.

If you want a private discussion without interruptions, use email, IM and so on. This is a public forum. If you want a forum where dissent with the main topic causes the perpertrator to be chased out or the thread locked, try The Forge.

I don't really understand the indignation and confusion here. What part of "forum" don't you understand?

I understand it is a forum.  Perhaps I'm having a problem communicating the the idea that threadcrapping ain't right.  Because that's what happened. I appreciate the John's live and let live about it, so I'll follow his lead....

Quote from: John MorrowThis is where it goes back to the fundamental world-based vs. meta-game divide.  If the GM is playing NPCs from their perspective (either thinking about what they'd do or thinking as the NPC), that's the GM equivalent of character mode.  Having the environment react as if it's a real place is a sibling to Character mode.  I'd probably call it World mode.  And World mode can be made accessible to the players.  For example, if I forgot to list a toolkit on my character sheet for a mechanic, I might declare that my character has a toolkit during play because, as a mechanic, he'd logically have a toolkit.  Another example is the character that tells the GM, "I go to the inn and get a room," in a traditional fantasy city.  The player simply assumes that there will be an inn where his character can get a room.

I'm not sure there should be a sibling.  I mean, for the person playing the world, in traditional games the GM, it's in character, no?

Now I think when you start distributing world-definition authority, well, I'm not sure where that goes...

The example of the toolkit is interesting because it doesn't take the player out of character, it's merely a question of authority to enter the fact into the world, no?

QuotePerhaps I'm having a problem communicating the the idea that threadcrapping ain't right.

I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it: it wasn't a threadcrap until you and Tony made it one.

I took up a point with John, and he's taken it with pretty good grace, considering what I'm suggesting. It calls into question the usefulness of your entire discussion, sure, but that's not my problem.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm not sure there should be a sibling.  I mean, for the person playing the world, in traditional games the GM, it's in character, no?

I think you are making a good point about authority and perhaps my example was weak.  What I think I'm trying to say is that the players scope of authority to manipulate the game world (aka SIS) is a sort of filter on what they'll consider and do in the game.  For example, even though I had the authority to use Fudge points in a convention game I played in once, I forgot to use them because they were outside of the in character stance through which I was looking at the game.  On the other hand, a player who thinks about things beyond their character might try to create a toolbox or sibling for their character only to be told that they've exceeded their authority by the system or GM and find that frustrating.

Actually, your assertion of skepticism has nothing to do with our discussion.  Look at how people responded - so what if John isn't really doing what he thinks?

For the most part, our discussion was at a much broader level, and John's specific method was a side discussion so people could better understand each other and how they played. Interesting, and important, but it's not like the entire discussion rested on whether or not John was delusional or extraordinary or what.

But if you'd read and understood the thread, before crapping on it, you might have figured that out.

Quote from: John MorrowI think you are making a good point about authority and perhaps my example was weak.  What I think I'm trying to say is that the players scope of authority to manipulate the game world (aka SIS) is a sort of filter on what they'll consider and do in the game.  For example, even though I had the authority to use Fudge points in a convention game I played in once, I forgot to use them because they were outside of the in character stance through which I was looking at the game.  On the other hand, a player who thinks about things beyond their character might try to create a toolbox or sibling for their character only to be told that they've exceeded their authority by the system or GM and find that frustrating.

Yeah, see, that's where the stance and the authority get hinkey. In Character Stance, the player attempts X.  The GM, playing world, rebuffs X outright. Is the GM stepping on the player? Is this where mechanics step in, or should?

Those of you who play deep in character, or at least relatively so, how would this play for you? Would you be OK with mechanics stepping in at this point, or would that step in your buzz?

Quote from: James J SkachBut if you'd read and understood the thread, before crapping on it, you might have figured that out.

See, you're doing it again. But at this point I will be he who cries "Hold, enough!"

Quote from: James J SkachYeah, see, that's where the stance and the authority get hinkey. In Character Stance, the player attempts X.  The GM, playing world, rebuffs X outright. Is the GM stepping on the player? Is this where mechanics step in, or should?

Well, you are missing some details there.  Is the X that the player is attempting via the agency of his or her character (e.g., "My character climbs the tree.") or outside the agency of his or her character (e.g., "I hunt the deer grazing near the stream" when the GM hasn't said there are deer there)?  Is the GM rebuffing the existence of something the player is assuming (e.g., "There are no deer by the stream"), telling the player they can't do it (e.g., "The tree is wet and slippery and you just can't climb it"), or telling the player what their character does (e.g., "Your character doesn't try to climb the tree").  I think it's fair for the GM to decide what is or isn't in the setting and whether my character can or can't do things.  I don't think a GM should be telling me what my character thinks, what my character does, what my character says, or what my character tries or doesn't try to do (the exception being a mind control or a failure of willpower).  

Quote from: James J SkachThose of you who play deep in character, or at least relatively so, how would this play for you? Would you be OK with mechanics stepping in at this point, or would that step in your buzz?

I'm not sure what you are expecting the mechanics to do here.

Quote from: John MorrowWell, you are missing some details there.  Is the X that the player is attempting via the agency of his or her character (e.g., "My character climbs the tree.") or outside the agency of his or her character (e.g., "I hunt the deer grazing near the stream" when the GM hasn't said there are deer there)?  Is the GM rebuffing the existence of something the player is assuming (e.g., "There are no deer by the stream"), telling the player they can't do it (e.g., "The tree is wet and slippery and you just can't climb it"), or telling the player what their character does (e.g., "Your character doesn't try to climb the tree").  I think it's fair for the GM to decide what is or isn't in the setting and whether my character can or can't do things.  I don't think a GM should be telling me what my character thinks, what my character does, what my character says, or what my character tries or doesn't try to do (the exception being a mind control or a failure of willpower).  



I'm not sure what you are expecting the mechanics to do here.

My fault, I wasn't clear.

The example used before was a toolkit.  Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that you, as a player, forgot to purchase a toolkit for your mechanic character during game prep.  During play, you, in Character stance, mention earching for your toolkit.  The GM has several options.  In theory, playing in Character for the world, he could say "You don't have a toolkit."

I don't know if he would or should.  I guess I'm asking if he does, what are the variouos ramifications...

Is that more clear?

Quote from: James J SkachThe example used before was a toolkit.  Now let's say, for the sake of argument, that you, as a player, forgot to purchase a toolkit for your mechanic character during game prep.  During play, you, in Character stance, mention earching for your toolkit.  The GM has several options.  In theory, playing in Character for the world, he could say "You don't have a toolkit."

It all depends on why the GM says "no".  Usually, if it's for a world-based reason, the GM can explain and the player, in my experience, will usually go along with it.  Where there is a problem with something like this, it's usually for non-world-based reasons (e.g., rigid conformity to starting equipment rules or the player trying to score an unearned advantage).  So long as sense can be made out of the situation, an in character player could probably roll with whatever the GM decides.  For example, if I felt that my mechanic should logically have a toolkit and the GM tells me I don't because I forgot to buy one with my starting money, I might imagine that my character had one but it was stolen or he gave it to someone else in a crisis to explain it in character, rather than leaving an inexplicable hole in the character that doesn't make sense.

Quote from: James J SkachYeah, see, that's where the stance and the authority get hinkey. In Character Stance, the player attempts X.  The GM, playing world, rebuffs X outright. Is the GM stepping on the player? Is this where mechanics step in, or should?

Those of you who play deep in character, or at least relatively so, how would this play for you? Would you be OK with mechanics stepping in at this point, or would that step in your buzz?

When I'm running, as far as formal authority structure goes, I'm a raving absolutist, in the sense that I can potentially veto anything whatsoever (but see below). No die and no rule ever overrules me.  I wrote the dice code we're using,  I wrote the homebrew, and they're my servants, not my master.

The reason for this is that we're not playing a game where the players are trying to overcome a challenge according to defined rules.  We're trying to figure out what "really" happened -- what would happen if the characters and the setting really did exist?  And I'm the court of last resort: in case of irreconcileable conflict, it's my world and my vision prevails.

But.

I just described the formal structure in a hardline fashion: what happens if we cannot agree?  I didn't describe the day-to-day working structure.  We usually can agree, and it's a rare circumstance for me to invoke "le monde, c'est moi" -- in my current campaign we've played about three dozen sessions and I haven't done it yet.  Since we're trying to explore a realistic-feeling world, in practice we want every decision to be made by the person most likely to make the right one.

A most common approach is for the player to propose something and for me to overturn it only if the world just doesn't work that way, or if it doesn't happen to be true.  For instance, most players get to my games having played with common fantasy (especially D&D) conventions, and my fantasy settings are modelled more closely on historical medieval society.  The typical player gets to my worlds thinking that every village, no matter how small and no matter where placed, has an inn, and we have a conversation like this:

Player: "My character will head to the inn for the night."
Me: "Actually, there isn't one.  This is a typical farming village not on a main road, and it doesn't have the population or the travellers to support an inn.  The best place to seek hospitality is the ."

On the other hand, if something the player proposes fits, I accept it.  For instance, one of the players in my current campaign is playing a highly talented scryer.  We've played scenes before where she's employed that sort of magic, so the player already has a basic idea of how it works.  A few sessions ago, the character decided to attempt scrying by a somewhat unorthodox method in order to avoid detection.  I got an immersionist's description of the unorthodox approach, what she was trying to do.  Now, I'd never thought about approaching it this way before, but I didn't see any reason why it wouldn't work in theory, and it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that a character of her ability might come up with a novel method and make it work, so I accepted the description and then started describing what she discovered that way.

If it really wouldn't have worked, I'd have said so, and said why.  I certainly would not break out the dice to resolve the matter: my worlds are not constructed at random.  They have an underlying logic, and I do my best to reject anything not in accord with that logic and to accept anything that does accord with that logic.  I'm carrying the most complete version of the magic model, and I accept someone else's additions to it when they fit.

The player, on the other hand, is carrying the best version of the PC.  I step over the boundaries of the PC's skin a bit when I describe sensory impressions at times -- I am suggesting a focus for the character's consciousness when I describe gusts of wind driving a freezing drizzle against the character's cheeks, for example.  The player might respond with a description indicating that, yes, the character is shivering in the wind, or wrapping her scarf over her nose and mouth; or they might respond instead by indicating that the character is so angry and intent on pursuing the man that has just attacked her kinfolk that she scarcely feels the wind for red rage.  Either of which is fine.  It's a cooperative effort, a matter of give and take, and when you're on the other side of the boundary -- you propose, but the bearer of the model disposes.  And that's true for both players and the GM in my campaigns.

I am willing to let players carry models besides their own characters if they happen to want them.  Some don't -- some find them a distraction, and want to leave most of the background definition to me.  But others are happy to start building parts of the world, often by creating backgrounds for their characters.  In my old long-term fantasy campaign, the dwarven culture was a cooperative effort between two of the players with some input from me, and they often would resolve questions of dwarven culture and politics in play.  For instance, I'm the one who first said that there was a dwarven citadel in the northern mountains, but one of the players named it and made it the home of his character, and when the party visited it, he took over narration as the characters arrived there.

I also expect players to object during the session if I rule on something in a way they don't think makes sense.  I'm not omniscient, and sometimes someone else at the table knows more than me about how something is likely to work; and if I've made a mistake, the earlier we fix it the better.  I want a believable world and I'm never going to overrule the Coast Guard officer about sailing or the geology major about rock formations, for example.

I always reserve the right to say, "No, because -- ".  But if I'm playing with the right people, I should end up saying "Yes, and -- " a lot more often.  And I expect to hear "No, because --" from time to time too.

-- I said that I could potentially overrule anything whatsoever.  Now under ordinary circumstances I never tell a player what their character should be trying to do, or what their reactions are.  However, occasionally I run into someone who plays in a fashion that makes no in-world sense, who trails OOCness like a comet-tail.  I'm not going to let someone write complete nonsense into the world -- having their character do abysmally stupid and unbelievable things because the player wants more fights, for instance.  I might make one attempt to get someone like this to play plausibly in character, although the odds are that it won't work and I'll soon be inviting them out of the game.

I have a pretty similar attitude when I'm playing.  I don't expect the GM to tell me what my character is thinking, what they desire, or what their emotions are.  But I do expect to incorporate the GM's descriptions of the physical world and also of my character's culture into the character model, and I expect the GM to tell me if I portray something improbable.  For instance, if I've just shown my character doing something that makes sense to a modern Westerner but which would be a hideous gaffe in the culture, I want to hear about it -- I may not have meant to show the character making a gaffe.  And I want to know if I've just portrayed my character as trying to do something the character ought to know is unlikely to work or downright impossible, in case I didn't mean to do that either.  I only want the GM to break out the dice if the thing I just had my character try makes in-world sense.

Quote from: KeranIf it really wouldn't have worked, I'd have said so, and said why.  I certainly would not break out the dice to resolve the matter: my worlds are not constructed at random.  They have an underlying logic, and I do my best to reject anything not in accord with that logic and to accept anything that does accord with that logic.  I'm carrying the most complete version of the magic model, and I accept someone else's additions to it when they fit.

When I GM, there is an area of uncertainty between "yes" and "no" where I'll often roll dice.  For example, if I don't have a town planned out and if the setting doesn't have an inn in most of the towns off of trading routes (as you mentioned) and so forth but there is a small possibility that there might be an inn where you normally wouldn't expect one, I'll roll dice.  If the dice suggest an inn, then I'll figure out why there is an inn where there normally shouldn't be one (e.g., maybe something brings travellers here, maybe it once was on a route and just never closed, etc.).

And in my experience, where something is strictly possible but very unlikely (e.g., "I randomly shoot my gun into the air over their heads.  Does anyone get hit?"), it often makes the GM seem less authoritarian if they roll some dice, even if they set the odds very low, and if the dice turn out to show that the very unlikely even happens, I think that can add a certain sort of realism to the game because strange but true stuff like that do happen in real life.

As for the character proposing something unorthodox that should work, I think the GM also needs to evaluate the implications on the entire setting.  For example, if a player figures out a trivially easy way to avoid being scryed (not necessarily what happened in your example), it raises the question of why other people in the setting haven't discovered it and why everyone isn't using it.  At that point, you have to figure out how to reconcile the implausibility in the setting before giving the player an answer.  

There are some GMs who use a similar plausibility test to adjust encounters.  For example, if the PCs find an obvious but easy way to sneak in to the Evil Overlord's castle and kill him, why hasn't anyone else and why hasn't the Evil Overlord found the weakness.  Some GMs will then figure out some way to fix the weakness so that it's not there, because they consider it implausible to be there.  Again, I think dice can help keep everyone honest and things more realistic.  There is always a small chance that the Evil Overlord missed something obvious and maybe nobody ever looked for the obvious before.  So before changing the Evil Overlord's defenses, I'd probably roll to see if, rather than being an oversight on the part of the GM, the Evil Overlord really did leave a gaping hole in his defense for the PCs to waltz through.

(Please note that there is a difference between a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses because a weak spot seems implausible, a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses because they want the players to be challenged, and a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses to ensure a particular sort of climactic battle between the Evil Overlord and the PCs in his throne room.)

Quote from: John Morrow(Please note that there is a difference between a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses because a weak spot seems implausible, a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses because they want the players to be challenged, and a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses to ensure a particular sort of climactic battle between the Evil Overlord and the PCs in his throne room.)

Oooh...I see the possiblity of even more filters that help define stances...

Thanks for the information guys.  I get where you're going.  I'm just trying to be cognizant of other possibilities.

the best of worlds (no pun intended) is described in your illustrations - a group and GM that trust each other enough to, in the case of Keran, not even use dice/randomizer for many things. I've been in groups where that was the case; though in my experience, those are more rare than groups where, no matter how strong the bonds, a player will call for the dice even if the GM describes why something wouldn't be the case.

So for me I could easily see a situation where a player, in Character, wants something that the GM, in (world)Character says no; and the player calls for dice. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I can see it.

Now that goes a bit beyond the discussion of stances, as it gets into authority. It was just an interesting issue for me where Stance and Authority issue cross. At that point, IMHO, you are really getting more fully into how people play together, whereas stance describes how an individual is approaching the game.

Quote from: James J SkachOooh...I see the possiblity of even more filters that help define stances...

At that point, what I'm describing isn't so much a stance but an agenda.  See where this can wind up going depending on what you want to look at?

Quote from: James J Skachthe best of worlds (no pun intended) is described in your illustrations - a group and GM that trust each other enough to, in the case of Keran, not even use dice/randomizer for many things. I've been in groups where that was the case; though in my experience, those are more rare than groups where, no matter how strong the bonds, a player will call for the dice even if the GM describes why something wouldn't be the case.

I really don't like the word "trust" in these discussions because it carries too many connotations that can create too many wrong impressions.  

I roll a lot of dice when I GM rather than just deciding because I don't believe I'll be unbiased.  In a sense, I don't "trust" myself to make unbiased and unpredictable decisions and I also have trouble making them, so I use dice.  Am I bad for not "trusting" myself?

The implication of using the word "trust" and thinking of it in terms of personal "bonds" and belief in the good intentions of the other participants.  I don't think the strength of personal bonds nor faith in the good intentions of the other participants (also often implied by "trust") are always the issue.  I think the problem often lies in a belief that all human decisions are fallible, thus it's not a matter of personal distrust but a more general skepticism of anyone's capability.

Quote from: James J SkachSo for me I could easily see a situation where a player, in Character, wants something that the GM, in (world)Character says no; and the player calls for dice. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I can see it.

Correct.  And I think part of this might go back to Tony's point about seeing possibilities vs. a single right answer.  The player would prefer the transition from possibility being translated into a single right answer being handled by a randomizer to make sure the extremes do pop up from time to time.  Always choosing  the most likely result is also choosing a predictable result.  Sometimes real life throws people a curve, and in my experience dice are better at doing that than people because the dice will produce results that a person wouldn't decide.

In the other thread, I mentioned co-GMing a science fiction game.  During that game, the players made an incursion into a hidden star system being used as a base by some pirates (the jump routes there and back were secret, not the star).  The other GM told me how he'd have the pirates respond and I stopped him and asked him to sort of play thought their response with some die rolls and speculation, the way I normally do things.  The reaction we produced, which we used in the game, wasn't something that either one of us would have just decided and the other GM liked what we did come up with enough that he was glad we did it that way.

Quote from: James J SkachNow that goes a bit beyond the discussion of stances, as it gets into authority. It was just an interesting issue for me where Stance and Authority issue cross. At that point, IMHO, you are really getting more fully into how people play together, whereas stance describes how an individual is approaching the game.

I think that stances and authority cross quite a bit but it's a mistake to glue them together because the connection isn't that direct.

Quote from: John MorrowWhen I GM, there is an area of uncertainty between "yes" and "no" where I'll often roll dice.  For example, if I don't have a town planned out and if the setting doesn't have an inn in most of the towns off of trading routes (as you mentioned) and so forth but there is a small possibility that there might be an inn where you normally wouldn't expect one, I'll roll dice.  If the dice suggest an inn, then I'll figure out why there is an inn where there normally shouldn't be one (e.g., maybe something brings travellers here, maybe it once was on a route and just never closed, etc.).

I roll dice in cases where I don't have a good in-world reason to make a decision either way, and I specifically don't want to make a decision myself.

Combat, for example.  It matters whether the arrow hits in one place, or in another 2" down and 3" to the left.  I don't usually have specific enough information to say exactly where it hits: diceless resolution would be arbitrary, without sufficient foundation.  Since I hate to make an arbitrary decision against a player that might take a character out of action, I'm biased in the players' favor; but over the long term that's bad, because there isn't any in-world explanation for the bias, and it makes the risk perceptibly fake.  So, dice.

But I did entirely diceless resolution as the lesser evil until I developed the technique and the mechanics to speed diced resolution up in chat.

QuoteAnd in my experience, where something is strictly possible but very unlikely (e.g., "I randomly shoot my gun into the air over their heads.  Does anyone get hit?"), it often makes the GM seem less authoritarian if they roll some dice, even if they set the odds very low, and if the dice turn out to show that the very unlikely even happens, I think that can add a certain sort of realism to the game because strange but true stuff like that do happen in real life.

I don't throw visible dice, and since we're playing in chat the players can't see if I'm rolling or not.  This isn't something I'd necessarily carry over into face-to-face if I ever ran that way, though.  I have a particular reason for it.

I ran entirely diceless for a long time because all the mechanical systems I'd ever seen had been an intolerable drag in chat.  When play is proceeding at the speed of the slowest typist, spending any time at all discussing who's rolling what pulls attention away from the world for much longer than it would face to face; and it gets a lot worse if there are multiple rolls to accomplish a task, particularly if anything is a special case that needs a lookup.  So well before the publication of Amber  DRPG I'd dropped into dicelessness as an emergency measure.  And I didn't start using dice again until I had a simple opposed-roll mechanic with low handling time, and MUSH code to support it so I could get a result by typing at most 13 characters.  I silently invoke the dice code when I want it, because discussions about mechanics are way, way, way too slow.  They're death to ICness in chat.

If anybody doesn't think a result makes sense, they can tell me about it, whether or not I got there using dice.

QuoteAs for the character proposing something unorthodox that should work, I think the GM also needs to evaluate the implications on the entire setting.  For example, if a player figures out a trivially easy way to avoid being scryed (not necessarily what happened in your example), it raises the question of why other people in the setting haven't discovered it and why everyone isn't using it.  At that point, you have to figure out how to reconcile the implausibility in the setting before giving the player an answer.

In this case, the character's far enough above average ability that she can expect to do things most people can't, so it's not a problem.  But, yeah, we had a conversation like that, about a spell one of the players was proposing for a background character.  If it'd worked the way I at first thought he meant, it would have had major and contrary-to-fact implications in warfare. But on further discussion it turned out that he'd meant it to work in a different manner, so I let it in.

QuoteThere are some GMs who use a similar plausibility test to adjust encounters.  For example, if the PCs find an obvious but easy way to sneak in to the Evil Overlord's castle and kill him, why hasn't anyone else and why hasn't the Evil Overlord found the weakness.  Some GMs will then figure out some way to fix the weakness so that it's not there, because they consider it implausible to be there.  Again, I think dice can help keep everyone honest and things more realistic.  There is always a small chance that the Evil Overlord missed something obvious and maybe nobody ever looked for the obvious before.  So before changing the Evil Overlord's defenses, I'd probably roll to see if, rather than being an oversight on the part of the GM, the Evil Overlord really did leave a gaping hole in his defense for the PCs to waltz through.

(Please note that there is a difference between a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses because a weak spot seems implausible, a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses because they want the players to be challenged, and a GM who builds up the Evil Overlord's defenses to ensure a particular sort of climactic battle between the Evil Overlord and the PCs in his throne room.)

Well, with a case like this, sometimes the fix is simple and obvious, and then I might just do it.

I might get a player saying, "Hey, why is the Evil Overlord dumb enough to build it like this when people have got to have been using tactic X for generations?"

Or if I'm the first one that notices the problem, I might throw the question on the table.  "Hey, I said this, but given these other thing, what I said doesn't actually make any sense."  "Well, maybe -- "  We all want the world to be believable, and if everyone has had a chance to weigh in with suggestions, it can be easier to get a solution that everyone will buy into.  Sometimes I do this when it isn't a problem, exactly, but just an open question about how something works, or how something had to have happened.

I guess you could say that, for technical reasons, I don't throw the dice on the table.  But I'm very likely to throw my reasoning on the table.