Quote from: James McMurrayMaybe I'm missing something. What makes this more than just fancy words for the way things work at a gaming table?

Nothing.

The special bonus is that with the fancy words, we make simple things harder to understand! And that way we can feel special as we puzzle them out. It's pretty uninspiring to just walk down a corridor, but to find your way through a maze is cool! Even if you had to make the maze yourself, and all you're doing is getting up in the middle of the night to go to the toilet.

Let's try plain English.

And JimBob everybody..let's give him a hand....he's here all week...or at least as long as we're having a conversation wherein he, and his theories, are not the center of attention...

I know John and Tony and Keran are using big fancy terms, but how often do we get to watch Forge and rfga battel it out to really see the differences, strengths, weaknesses, etc.?  If it's not interesting to you to try to describe the differences between in-character and out-of-character, specifically with respect to how that might help keep a game group together, you can always ignore the thread.

It might not be John's, Tony's or Keran's objective (to find a tool to help diagnose or design), but it's mine.  And if I can help them work out what they want, I'm willing to compromise with them - win/win for all of us.

Quote from: John MorrowThird-person IC is thinking about what the character would do based on what's known about them and what's happening to them. First-person or "Deep" IC is thinking in character.

Right.  But I don't think either of those is (for instance) "Well, this character is a farm-boy with dreams of greatness, so obviously he's going to rise to the occasion when he is called to a heroic journey."  And yet, that is still deciding what the character would do based on what's known about them and what's happening to them ... but it's doing it from a perspective entirely outside the game-world, viewing the character as a piece of fiction with the properties of fiction, rather than (solely) a fictional person with the properties of a real person.

Since the FAQ is saying quite clearly that decisions about the character can only be made from within the game-world ... I just don't know how to reconcile that.

Quote from: John MorrowRemember that this FAQ also says, "In any RPG, the participants will leap back and forth between these four stances so quickly and intuitively that they are likely to be unaware that they are doing so at all."

What you've been describing would be, in this model, using the IC stance to determine what your character is likely to do and then switching into Author mode to make a choice based on metagame concerns.

But that is in all ways completely indistinguishable from being in both stances at the same time, right?

I mean ... I think I understand the claim that people are switching back and forth on a nano-second by nano-second basis ... but I don't feel that when I play.  What I feel like is that I've got both things in mind at the same time.

I guess I'm in search of the justification for why the "Switching" model over anything else.  It's stated so plainly ... just "This is what happens" ... that I don't really know whether there's some further justification hidden away, or whether it's just an axiom that got thrown out and nobody ever challenged.

Quote from: John MorrowIn fact, I'm starting to think that a weakness of both of these models is that they seem to mix perspective (how the player is looking at the game) and scope of control (what the player is authorized to change in the game), and those are at least semi-independent variables.

Big agreement on that from this side of the peanut gallery.  Nicely stated, too!

That having been said, perspective and authority are connected in some situations.  The claim "But it's what my character would do!" is not without strength in swaying people to let you do something they'd otherwise object to.  Yes?

Quote from: TonyLBBig agreement on that from this side of the peanut gallery.  Nicely stated, too!

That having been said, perspective and authority are connected in some situations.  The claim "But it's what my character would do!" is not without strength in swaying people to let you do something they'd otherwise object to.  Yes?

It's interesting, where does making a choice in character lead to an authority issue?

Quote from: James J SkachIt's interesting, where does making a choice in character lead to an authority issue?

Sorry ... can you elaborate on the question?  I'd rather respond to what you actually meant to ask than risk reading too much between the lines.

Quote from: TonyLBThat having been said, perspective and authority are connected in some situations.

You'll notice that I said that they were "semi-independent", not independent.  I said that on purpose.

Quote from: TonyLBThe claim "But it's what my character would do!" is not without strength in swaying people to let you do something they'd otherwise object to.  Yes?

I think that's a bad example (in fact, it's the example that's frequently used to "prove" that in character play destroys games because so many problem players use it as an excuse).  When a player honestly resorts to that explanation to explain a decision, in my experience, it's less an argument to sway players to allow something they object to and more of an argument to explain how the player is playing and why the decision was made.  The primary purpose of the explanation is not normally pursuasion except where an abusive is using it to cover their game-distrupting decisions to avoid blame.

Quote from: John MorrowI think that's a bad example (in fact, it's the example that's frequently used to "prove" that in character play destroys games because so many problem players use it as an excuse).

Yeah, that's true.  It was the first example off the top of my head.  I'll try to think of a better one, but if you scoop me on it, and make a good one before I do, then I'll probably just be happy to be let off the hook on some heavy pondering

Quote from: TonyLBRight.  But I don't think either of those is (for instance) "Well, this character is a farm-boy with dreams of greatness, so obviously he's going to rise to the occasion when he is called to a heroic journey."  And yet, that is still deciding what the character would do based on what's known about them and what's happening to them ... but it's doing it from a perspective entirely outside the game-world, viewing the character as a piece of fiction with the properties of fiction, rather than (solely) a fictional person with the properties of a real person.

You are still constrained by the character and who they are.  The "what's known about them and what's happening to them" is the persective, not that they are a piece of fiction.  If you are deciding what the character would do based on the needs of the story (e.g., "I need them to go with the party, otherwise I'm going to spend the next three hours watching everyone else play"), then your perspective isn't on the character but on the player and game.

Quote from: TonyLBSince the FAQ is saying quite clearly that decisions about the character can only be made from within the game-world ... I just don't know how to reconcile that.

When you say, "based on what's known about them and what's happening to them", you are constraining the decision to what's happening inside of the game world, and what's happening to and within the character in particular.  A player who views their character "as a piece of fiction" and uses the unrealness of the character to govern their decisions will make very different decisions.  You'll see that with some people who don't get into the game and just move their character around like a playing piece without a personality.

Quote from: TonyLBBut that is in all ways completely indistinguishable from being in both stances at the same time, right?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

Quote from: TonyLBI mean ... I think I understand the claim that people are switching back and forth on a nano-second by nano-second basis ... but I don't feel that when I play.  What I feel like is that I've got both things in mind at the same time.

Where you bring Author mode in is when you consider "what's fun".  That's external to character and setting.  As you described it, you seem to consider the situation from an In Character perspective and then choose between different options of what the character might do from Author mode.  So you filter your choices from In Character and then finalize your choice as Author.  Isn't that pretty much how you described it earlier?

Quote from: TonyLBI guess I'm in search of the justification for why the "Switching" model over anything else.  It's stated so plainly ... just "This is what happens" ... that I don't really know whether there's some further justification hidden away, or whether it's just an axiom that got thrown out and nobody ever challenged.

I'm not sure the switching model is correct.  That may be an artifact of mixing perspective and scope of control.

What you should also remember is that rec.games.frp.advocacy was a discussion group that discussed theory with thousands and thousands of messages (I started one thread that ran something like 600 messages).  These FAQs are just a distillation of much longer discussions.  That's the closest rec.games.frp.advocacy had to Ron writing and essay to summarize something and they were trying to be as brief as possible.  So that FAQ is the tip of an iceberg, not the whole iceberg.  But also as the second FAQ explains, "These stances are not precisely defined."  The reason can be found in the first FAQ.  "This was first formulated by Kevin Hardwick and Sarah Kahn, and was so useful that it immediately became part of the jargon of the group."  In other words, no one questioned it heavily enough to give it a good workout, though elements were refined (e.g., the distinction between IC and Deep IC).

Quote from: TonyLBSorry ... can you elaborate on the question?  I'd rather respond to what you actually meant to ask than risk reading too much between the lines.

All characters, PC and NPC alike, are bound by the rules of the system and the definition of the world (what ya'll theroy guys like to call the SIS).

So if you make a decision to act a certain way or say a certain thing, and you make that decision based on in-character motivation, what authority issues exist?  The only ones I can think of are things resolved by mechanics, for which you obviously have mechanics, and things that are 'out of bounds' as it were.

So my question is, if your motivation/stance in In Character, what authority issues exist?

EDIT: Most of that was driven by your specific example of "but it's what my character would do." Which in my experience was rarely used as an appeal to authority.

Quote from: James J SkachSo my question is, if your motivation/stance in In Character, what authority issues exist?

Authority issues come up when players have expectations that transcend the SIS into the game space of players and GMs.  For example, it may make perfect sense for my character to steak from another PC, kill another PC, abandon the party, retire and buy a farm, etc. but all of those things may conflict with expectations that the group has about what characters should be doing.

Quote from: John MorrowAuthority issues come up when players have expectations that transcend the SIS into the game space of players and GMs.  For example, it may make perfect sense for my character to steak from another PC, kill another PC, abandon the party, retire and buy a farm, etc. but all of those things may conflict with expectations that the group has about what characters should be doing.

Gotcha...

So your character's authority to take certain actions are bound by the social contract.  The list of things to do/say from which I can choose is filtered through this lens.

Are all of the Actor/Author/Whatever-the-Hell bound all bound in the same way? I would assume so, but, you guys are old-schooling me on this, so...

Quote from: James J SkachSo your character's authority to take certain actions are bound by the social contract.  The list of things to do/say from which I can choose is filtered through this lens.

Correct, though not every group has much of a filter.  This is why the "But it's what my character would do!" excuse has such a bad reputation.  It's used by disruptive players to purposely try to slip things past the social contract filter.

Quote from: James J SkachAre all of the Actor/Author/Whatever-the-Hell bound all bound in the same way? I would assume so, but, you guys are old-schooling me on this, so...

Yes, I would think so.  I'm curious if Tony agrees.

Maybe that's a better way to look at this -- as a series of filters that get applied to put boundaries on the decisions a player makes or to pick the final decision out of a list of possiblities.

So "What would my character do?" is a filter.  "Would that upset Joe or Alice?" (other players) is a filter.  "Is this the way a character should react in this genre?" is a filter.  And so on.  It may be a little different for thinking in character but I think some sorts of filters might still be there.

Quote from: John MorrowYou are still constrained by the character and who they are.  The "what's known about them and what's happening to them" is the persective, not that they are a piece of fiction.  If you are deciding what the character would do based on the needs of the story (e.g., "I need them to go with the party, otherwise I'm going to spend the next three hours watching everyone else play"), then your perspective isn't on the character but on the player and game.

Is that "Author" stance then, in this terminology?

Quote from: John MorrowA player who views their character "as a piece of fiction" and uses the unrealness of the character to govern their decisions will make very different decisions.  You'll see that with some people who don't get into the game and just move their character around like a playing piece without a personality.

Oh dude ... do you realize how judgmental and dismissive that came across?  I'm assuming that you didn't mean it that way, but ... dude.  You know that this is part of the way I play my characters, and you want to make your only example be people who are identified only by the fact that they're doing a crappy job of roleplaying?  And I thought we were getting along so well ...

Quote from: John MorrowSo you filter your choices from In Character and then finalize your choice as Author.  Isn't that pretty much how you described it earlier?

Well, I described having a single state of mind that operated in both modes simultaneously.  You're describing switching back and forth.  So ... no, it's not really the same thing, I don't think.  I mean ... just for example, you really wouldn't talk about synergies between IC and Author stances if you adhere to the switching model, would you?

Quote from: James J SkachSo your character's authority to take certain actions are bound by the social contract.  The list of things to do/say from which I can choose is filtered through this lens.

Wow ... that's an interesting way to say that ... starting from the social contract, and then working your way out to behaviors, rather than vice versa.

I'd be much more comfortable saying, instead "There are things that people will let you do without a peep, and other things that will prompt discussions and maybe disagreements.  The sum of those actual boundaries is the social contract, whether it's what you've explicitly agreed to or not."  Which is sort of the same thing, but turned inside out, to put the emphasis on the actual people, where it belongs.

Quote from: James J SkachAre all of the Actor/Author/Whatever-the-Hell bound all bound in the same way? I would assume so, but, you guys are old-schooling me on this, so...

It's bound by the players at the table, just like everything is.