FAQ
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
Here's a modified version of a glossary I came up with last year. I was
unable to keep it up because of time pressure, and I expect time pressure
to hurt me now, as well, so don't expect me to maintain it very well. :(
I tried to keep it short enough to be useful, but you'll have to tell
me if I was successful.
The FAQ has three parts: Types of Games, Narrative Stances, and
Miscellaneous Terms.
***Types of Games***
These terms can be combined to describe the type of game in more
detail. For example, a game might be freeform diced or diceless
simulationist game.
diced game -- any game that uses dice to resolve action. This term
usually, but not always, refers to a RPG.
Examples: Over the Edge, GURPS, Risk
diceless game -- any game that does not use dice. This term usually,
but not always, refers to an RPG.
Examples: Amber, Theatrix, Diplomacy
freeform game -- RPGs which have few mechanics, and rely heavily on player
and GM common sense to resolve actions. Note that that a
freeform game can be either diced or diceless, and that
there are diced *and* diceless non-freeform games.
Examples: FUDGE, Over the Edge, Everway
mechanics-heavy RPG -- any RPG that has many many mechanics for resolving
actions. That is to say, there are game mechanics
that deal with a great many situations.
Examples: RoleMaster, GURPS, Hero
plot-based game -- a game played so that a good story with strong plot are
formed by the characters' actions. The GM pays attention
to drama and tension, and tries to make sure the game
has closure. This does not require that a GM have a
particular plot he forces the players through, but that
he make sure that there is *a* plot at the end of the
game. Plot-based is NOT a synonym for scripted.
scripted game -- a game in which the GM decides all scenes ahead of
time, and the PCs have to go through the events in
order. This is the design for many modules, and is often
referred to perjoratively as ``railroading.''
simulationist game -- a game in which the objective is to make as accurate
as possible a simulation of the game world. To this
end, the only events that happen must arise naturally
from the situation, This does not necessarily require
mechanics or dice -- it is the intent of the players
and GM that determines the type of game.
***Narrative Stances***
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.
The basic idea is that a player can perceive the game from one of four
basic viewpoints: the Actor stance, the Audience, the Author stance,
and the In-Character stance.
Actor stance -- the player's primary interest is creating a convincing
and interesting characterization for the other people
in the game.
Audience stance -- the player's primary interest is in whether the game
meets his requirements. This is the stance from which
you decide whether the game meets your requirements of
drama, simulation, or whatever.
Author stance -- the player's primary interest is in creating an interesting
set of characters and game situations. The player decides
what goes into the character -- ``Things will be more
interesting if Jon is a member of the hated N'zee tribe'' --
from the outside.
In-Character -- the player's primary interest in trying to create a deep
rapport with his character, and as far as it is possible,
being the character and feeling his thoughts and emotions.
For different players, different stances will be most important. Some
players get their kicks by hamming it up for their friends, and others
enjoy making sure the behavior of firearms is exactly right.
***Miscellaneous***
group contract -- The set of conventions the players and GM agree on.
This can be things like ``The GM will fudge things
so PCs won't die pointless deaths,'' or ``This is
a hack & slash D&D game; don't worry about consistency
or characterization,'' or even ``Don't let the cat
in the room while we play -- she bites legs.''
mechanic -- In this forum, a mechanic is usually taken to mean a
formal method of resolution. A statement like "low roll
good, lower roll better" is not considered a mechanic
unless it is spelled out just how low is good. On the
other hand, a statement like "a 02 or less is a critical"
is a mechanic.
mechanics-light -- synonym for freeform.
metagame -- dealing with concerns of the players and GM, as opposed to
the characters in the game. Examples are genre, mechanics,
and spotlight time.
quantification -- using numbers or ranked adjectives to rate some aspect
of a character.
spotlight time -- the amount of time a player is the center of attention
in the group.
Scott. A. H. Ruggels
Back a few months someone (I belivve it was mary, suggested a
simulationist stance list, similar to the narrative stance list. This
might be something to include. Also URL's to Leon Stauber's axes might
be useful as well.
Scott
Ennead
Scott. A. H. Ruggels (scott....@3do.com) wrote:
: Back a few months someone (I belivve it was mary, suggested a
: simulationist stance list, similar to the narrative stance list.
I'm...intrigued, but a bit confused. What would the simulationist
stance list consist of, and how would it differ from the narrative stance
list? The four stances, as I understand them, are hardly absent from
simulationist games. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're
getting at here.
-- Sarah
A Lapalme
The idea was that the four narrative assumed a certain type of paradigm:
mainly a narrative/story based one. So, someone thought that it might be
a good idea to derive stances, starting from a simulationist paradigm
viewpoint.
It didn't go very far since the whole thing degenerated into an argument
as to what is the simulationist paradigm.
I still think it is a valid exercise. While it is quite possible that the
simulationist stances end up being the same or similar to the narrative
stances, the road leading to that might be informative.
Alain
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <4n6s2h$1...@nadine.teleport.com> enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
>Scott. A. H. Ruggels (scott....@3do.com) wrote:
>: Back a few months someone (I belivve it was mary, suggested a
>: simulationist stance list, similar to the narrative stance list.
> I'm...intrigued, but a bit confused. What would the simulationist
>stance list consist of, and how would it differ from the narrative stance
>list? The four stances, as I understand them, are hardly absent from
>simulationist games. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're
>getting at here.
> -- Sarah
Someone--I think it may have been John Kim--raised the possibility that
by using the four-stances terminology we were weighting the discussion
towards a cinematic metaphor for gameplay, and suggested trying to
develop a different approach for games which don't use the
game-as-cinema metaphor so heavily.
I don't have the article, but here's a vague idea of the stances we
eventually came up with:
IC -- taking pleasure in being inside your character's head
Re-enactor -- taking pleasure in getting details of character and
culture "just right"
Tourist -- enjoying the setting
Scholar -- enjoying figuring out the setting and how things
work (close to tourist but there may be a distinction)
Engineer -- enjoying making changes, through the character, in
the gameworld (starting a cult, overthrowing a kingdom, etc.)
Tactician -- enjoying meeting and overcoming technical challenges
There might have been one or two more--anyone keep the article? I found
it useful to look at things from a different slant. In particular
"Actor" brings with it suggestions of playing to an audience, whereas
the "re-enactor" enjoyment can be quite private; and "Audience" suggests
that someone is telling you a story, whereas some "tourist" players
really could care less about story--they just want to visit interesting
places. And the four-stances model doesn't really account for engineer,
tactician, and scholar as distinct possibilities.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Ennead
Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
: Someone--I think it may have been John Kim--raised the possibility that
: by using the four-stances terminology we were weighting the discussion
: towards a cinematic metaphor for gameplay, and suggested trying to
: develop a different approach for games which don't use the
: game-as-cinema metaphor so heavily.
Huh. Well, I don't see the four stances as based at all in the
game-as-cinema metaphor, nor do I think that they presuppose a cinematic
or non-simulationist game. I suspect that this idea has derived more from
Kevin's interest in dramatic structure and his use of the four-stance
model in conjunction with this interest than it does in the model itself.
That, and the use of the word "Actor," which might be carrying unfortunate
connotations of Theatrix and its use of cinematic metaphor.
I have an unpleasant suspicion that perhaps people are
misinterpreting or misunderstanding what the models represent. Players of
simulationist games *often* adopt the Actor stance. They decide to use a
particular voice for a particular character, attempt to look sad to
indicate to the other players that their character is looking sad, use
in-character gestures, and so forth. These are all manifestations of
adopting the stance of Actor, and I've not seen *any* RPG in which none of
this took place, even if it's just at the level of the player saying in
character, "He went that way," and then gesturing, rather than going on
to say "I point in the direction he went." The only games I can think of
in which the players do not adopt the stance of Actor from time to time
are MUSHes and PBeMs and the like, games which are not conducted on a
face-to-face level.
I also find it hard to imagine a game in which the players do not
adopt the narrative stance of Author. Any game in which trips to the
bathroom (to use a notorious example) are *not* played out is one in which
the players are adopting the narrative stance. By not mentioning your
character's excretory activities, but allowing them to be taken as read by
the others, you have made an authorial decision -- namely, the decision to
focus on certain aspects of your character's life to the exclusion of
others. That's not an In-Character decision. That's a decision that
requires the adoption of the stance of Author.
And as for Audience, there are many simulationists who do not
leave the room or otherwise "block out" in-game events which their
characters don't witness. I know that some people do like to try to do
this, but many simulationists do not. (And Mary, obviously, *cannot*
given the types of games she plays ;>) When you watch scenes in which
your character is not present, you take on the narrative stance of
Audience. When you appreciate the humour in a scene that your character
finds NOT FUNNY AT ALL!!!, then you are taking on the narrative stance of
Audience. Again, while this stance may be greatly reduced in some types
of gaming, I think that it would be difficult to eliminate it altogether.
I don't think that the IC stance requires much explication. It is
the one most privileged by nearly all RPGs, and the one that, to a great
extent, defines the medium itself.
I don't see how this model is inappropriate to simulationist
gaming at all. I find it a particularly odd suggestion because back when
Kevin first proposed this way of looking at RPG, I *was* thinking about
them in terms of a simulationist game, as I think of those sorts of games
as the RPG "norm." Dramatic games and simulationist games privilege the
stances differently. The use of the four-stance model, as I see it, is to
try to define a bit more specifically the differences between these types
of gaming. If you don't believe that the model applies to simulationist
games, then I fail to understand what you think the model is *modelling.*
: I don't have the article, but here's a vague idea of the stances we
: eventually came up with:
: IC -- taking pleasure in being inside your character's head
: Re-enactor -- taking pleasure in getting details of character and
: culture "just right"
: Tourist -- enjoying the setting
: Scholar -- enjoying figuring out the setting and how things
: work (close to tourist but there may be a distinction)
: Engineer -- enjoying making changes, through the character, in
: the gameworld (starting a cult, overthrowing a kingdom, etc.)
: Tactician -- enjoying meeting and overcoming technical challenges
I think that these are very useful terms (I also liked the
"Plumber," which came up in a different thread), but they aren't narrative
stances. The Scholar and the Tourist, for example, are both operating
from the same narrative stance; "narrative stance," as I have been using
the term, does not describe what the player hopes to get out of the game,
or what aspect of play they most enjoy, but from what narrative
perspective they are viewing the game. It's not really the same thing.
: There might have been one or two more--anyone keep the article? I found
: it useful to look at things from a different slant.
Again, I agree that these are useful distinctions and that they
provide a strong basis on which to evaluate different play styles.
They're just not dealing with at all the same phenomena.
: In particular
: "Actor" brings with it suggestions of playing to an audience, whereas
: the "re-enactor" enjoyment can be quite private...
They don't mean the same thing. The "re-enactor" may be adopting
the Actor stance or the Author stance. If she's interested in getting her
character's tone of voice just right in play, then she's adopted the
stance of the Actor. If she's concerned with making sure that her
character's beliefs and opinions are perfectly in-keeping with her
upbringing and background, then she's jumped into Author mode. In a case
in which the re-enactor's enjoyment is private, the Author stance is the
relevant one here (unless she is capable of taking great private pleasure
in her ability to mimic the character's vocal tones, that is).
I personally spend very little time viewing the game from the
Actor's stance. Kip, on the other hand, doesn't feel that he really has a
handle on his characters until he has "found a voice" for them (in the
literal meaning of the phrase, not in the writer's meaning of the same
terminology). In other words, for him, the re-enactment aspect of the
game is strongly linked to his adoption of the stance of Actor. For me,
the stance of Actor is unimportant to this aspect of the game.
; ...and "Audience" suggests
: that someone is telling you a story, whereas some "tourist" players
: really could care less about story--they just want to visit interesting
: places.
It is not intended to suggest that. The Audience stance is the
one from which you enjoy witnessing something in the game as a *player,*
rather than as a character. If the "Tourist" is playing a character from
the culture in question -- in other words, one for whom the in-game
culture is normal, taken for granted, and therefore fairly uninteresting
-- then the Tourist's enjoyment derives from his adoption of the stance of
Audience. If it is the *character* who finds the place exciting and
interesting, while the player finds it fairly mundane (as in, for example,
a game in which the PCs are fantasy characters magically transported to
the modern day), then the stance from which the Tourist is gaining his
"fix" is the IC stance.
Again, the stances are meant to describe the perspectives from
which the "narrative" (ie - the game) is being viewed. They do not
presuppose Story or lack thereof, except inasmuch as the game itself is
inevitably a form of narrative. If you want to jump from the idea of
"narrative" to the idea of "story," then I suppose you could, but I'm not
going to be responsible for what happens next. ;)
: And the four-stances model doesn't really account for engineer,
: tactician, and scholar as distinct possibilities.
They are not intended to. They are intended to describe the
perspectives from which the game is viewed at the most fundamental level.
I could go through the Engineer, the Tactician, and the Scholar as I have
with the Tourist and the Re-enactor, describing how the four-stance model
relates to these styles of play, but I don't want to belabour the point.
I really think that the four-stance model has been badly
misunderstood here. It is not meant to define the same phenomena that
you are attempting to delineate at *all.* You are describing perspectives
from which the game is enjoyed and evaluated by different types of players
(or by the same players in different "modes"). This is not at all the
same thing as the basic narrative stances from which the game is viewed at
the most fundamental level.
I like the work you've done here, and I'd like to see more of it.
But I really must insist that these are not "narrative stances" in the
same meaning of the term that Kevin and I have used in the past. They're
really not describing the same thing at all.
-- Sarah
John H Kim
OK, a reply to Sarah here regarding my old concept/article on
"simulationist stances" (including my original article at the bottom)...
Alain Lapalme <ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> writes:
>: I'm...intrigued, but a bit confused. What would the simulationist
>: stance list consist of, and how would it differ from the narrative
>: stance list? The four stances, as I understand them, are hardly
>: absent from simulationist games.
True. The point of the "simulationist stances" was to analyze
the same phenomena using different categories. If you use Actor/Author/
Audience/In-Character, you are *imposing* a cinematic interpretation
of the game. To a simulationist, it may be more helpful to break down
viewpoints in other categories -- sort of like sorting LEGO's by shape
versus sorting by color.
>
> It didn't go very far since the whole thing degenerated into an
> argument as to what is the simulationist paradigm.
As I recall, there was a fair bit of discussion, from various
sides about the stances. Discussion was hampered by terminology, as
usual -- but it didn't completely stall things (this was around the
time of some people defining "dramatist" as different from "dramatic",
which I still consider a bad idea).
I am including the original article below. Other people added
some categories and debated the dividing lines, but I didn't save the
whole discussion (I recall a "gossip" stance who was interested in
looking at other character's lives).
---------------------------(Cut Here)----------------------------------
OK, in a recent post I had commented that the terms we were
often using were heavily biased to the dramatic way of viewing games --
for example the "stances" of Author, Audience, Actor, and In-Character.
Now, obviously the best way to combat this is to take the simulationist
point of view and try to deconstruct that in a similar way.
I don't have infinite amounts of time, so I thought I would
share my incomplete thoughts on the subject rather than trying to
come up with a complete theoretical framework on my own.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
David Berkman <bcks...@crl.com> wrote:
>Heck, what is the 'simulationst' viewpoint. What stances and perspectives
>make it up. What's the psychological/philosophical basis for them?
Well, in parallel to the dramatic stances, I might offer some
possibilities for simulationist "stances". The key thing for understanding
the simulationist Point-of-View is to consider the gameworld as an
alternate reality rather than a shared story. While the dramatic
stances are about participation in the plot around the protagonists,
these stances are about the gameworld. One might picture them as
invisible Points-of-View (POV's) looking over the character's shoulder...
-> "In-Character" is obviously an important one, but not the only one.
-> "Scholar" is the stance interested in how things work in the
gameworld. This could be the stickler in a hard sci-fi game who
always wants to know how some gadget works -- or the analyzing
mage in a fantasy game in search of the ultimate answers...
-> "Tourist" is the stance interested in the details of the world for
themselves.
-> "Engineer" is a more interactive stance, interested creating things
as part of the game-world. For example, you might like to have your
character found an organization, or overthrow a political figure --
just to leave your mark on the world.
-> "Problem-solver" is a stance about treating isolated challenges as
intellectual puzzles. This includes the wargaming urge to delve
into tactics, but also lots of other puzzle-solving and so forth.
-*-*-*-
Now, of course it is easy to draw parallels -- one might say
that "Engineer" is the equivalent of "Author", for example. I don't
think that this is so, however. The urge to "engineer" is not
neccessarily about writing things into the background -- it can be
about putting things in purely via PC action. Whereas an author looks
at the Plot as the product to which he is contributing, the engineer
looks at the World as the product to which he is contributing -- and
there is a distinction, in my mind.
Let me take an example. In a dramatic detective game, a PC
gets into an easy fight as he beats up on a suspect. Another character
tosses him a gun to threaten the guy with. As Author, the player thinks
that it would be a neat plot twist if his character fumbles the catch,
and the gun land where the suspect could grab it.
This isn't really covered from the simulationist stances. The
scholar might be concerned that actual throw and catching be handled
reasonably -- but none of the stances are concerned with controlling
how the outcome comes about.
-*-*-*-
In turn, the "scholar" and "tourist" stances are passive like
the "Audience". However, the audience concern themselves first with
the actions of the PC's -- whereas the scholar and the tourist could
care less about any of the central characters. They are interested
in non-character-related things, and thus time spent in those stances
means less emotional attachment to the PC's as protagonists.
-*-*-*-
Now, I certainly get the feeling like I am leaving things out.
Does anyone else have comments or ideas on the subject?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "Faith - Faith is an island in the setting sun.
jh...@columbia.edu | But Proof - Proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Columbia University | - Paul Simon, _Proof_
John H Kim
A few words of reassurance here to Sarah... Sarah, no one
(that I recall) has denied that the narrative stances exist and are
used in "simulationist games" -- which is sort of an arbitrary division
anyhow. Further, no one has said that narrative stances are
inappropriate for discussion of simulationist games.
The "simulationist stances" I had proposed are not a replacement
or a rebuttal to the "narrative stances". Rather, they were intended
as an added set of analysis tools -- which could perhaps be used parallel
to or even in conjuction with the "narrative stances".
You seem to be regarding the use of Simulationist-Stances to
be an attack on the Four-Narrative-Stance model --
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Mary K. Kuhner (mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu) wrote:
>: Someone--I think it may have been John Kim--raised the possibility that
>: by using the four-stances terminology we were weighting the discussion
>: towards a cinematic metaphor for gameplay, and suggested trying to
>: develop a different approach for games which don't use the
>: game-as-cinema metaphor so heavily.
>
>Huh. Well, I don't see the four stances as based at all in the
>game-as-cinema metaphor, nor do I think that they presuppose a cinematic
>or non-simulationist game.
[..]
>I have an unpleasant suspicion that perhaps people are misinterpreting or
>misunderstanding what the models represent. Players of simulationist
>games *often* adopt the Actor stance.
Yes, that's what we all said! Look at it this way: a player
is playing out her conversation with an NPC about some trivial aspect
of art in their culture. On the one hand, you can look at this as
saying that the player is making use of the Actor stance to portray
her character, and of the Author stance to define her conversation and
some background which she fills in as she talks, and of the
However, this discussion is inherently treating the role-playing
as a narrative... When you discuss these stances you go on to say things
like "What are techniques which the Actor stance uses?" -- which leads
to conversation about ways of conveying character and emotion to other
players.
That is perfectly valid discussion, but I would argue that there
are *fundamental* aspects of the game which are overlooked if this is
your only approach towards discussing the game.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Just look at the threads here on .advocacy -- there is an enormous
amount of discussion devoted to analysis of how certain games played in
terms of the *plot* and *resolution*. Take Alain's cat-demons campaign...
Several times we have tried to analyze how the narrative of the PC's was
resolved -- in terms of player input, and narrative technique, etc.
What we are skipping by this is treatment of the environment as
a thing unto itself. We take it as a given that the politics has put
the PC's out of the loop for a time -- the important thing is how to
make the narrative flow over several years...
We are frequently ignoring issues of things like "what are the
cat-demons" and "how does their nature create a fun environment in which
to game". Rather, we are self-consciously looking at only the produced
narrative of the PC's actions.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>I really think that the four-stance model has been badly misunderstood
>here. It is not meant to define the same phenomena that you are
>attempting to delineate at *all.*
That's *exactly* my point. The Four-Stance model doesn't define
the phenomena that we are trying to delineate -- hence an additional
model is needed to cover that gap.
>
> I like the work you've done here, and I'd like to see more of it.
>But I really must insist that these are not "narrative stances" in the
>same meaning of the term that Kevin and I have used in the past. They're
>really not describing the same thing at all.
Hello? No one has called them "narrative stances" -- that's why
I used the term "simulationist stances".
Ennead
Okay. It seems that I misinterpreted Mary and Scott's mention of
the "simulationist stances" as a result of a misinterpretation of the
"narrative stances." Sorry about that. I was responding to a comment
that the development of the simstances had come about because people felt
that they were less than relevant to "simulationist" games, a statement
with which I strongly disagree.
John H Kim (jh...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: A few words of reassurance here to Sarah... Sarah, no one
: (that I recall) has denied that the narrative stances exist and are
: used in "simulationist games" -- which is sort of an arbitrary division
: anyhow. Further, no one has said that narrative stances are
: inappropriate for discussion of simulationist games.
Okay.
: The "simulationist stances" I had proposed are not a replacement
: or a rebuttal to the "narrative stances". Rather, they were intended
: as an added set of analysis tools -- which could perhaps be used parallel
: to or even in conjuction with the "narrative stances".
Okay. Like I said, I think they're very useful terms, and I'd
like to see them more in use.
I particularly liked your analogy likening these stances to
"little people looking over the players' shoulders." If I may pick at the
metaphor, I'd suggest the narrative stances as the platforms hovering over
the game on which people stand to look at it. Hopping back and forth from
one to the other in the course of the game, naturally.
Ugh. Sounds like those one-footed cherubim. Never mind, maybe we
shouldn't pick at the metaphor.
: You seem to be regarding the use of Simulationist-Stances to
: be an attack on the Four-Narrative-Stance model --
Not an attack at all. I did get the impression that they were
being proposed as "the simulationist equivalents," though, and I therefore
wanted to make it clear that I didn't think that they were. Since this
was not, in fact, your intent, I have no problems with them whatsoever.
: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
: >Huh. Well, I don't see the four stances as based at all in the
: >game-as-cinema metaphor, nor do I think that they presuppose a cinematic
: >or non-simulationist game.
: [..]
: >I have an unpleasant suspicion that perhaps people are misinterpreting or
: >misunderstanding what the models represent. Players of simulationist
: >games *often* adopt the Actor stance.
: Yes, that's what we all said!
All right. Please do bear in mind that I missed the original
discussion surrounding the creation of these terms and was therefore only
going from Mary's and Scott's very brief explanations, both of which gave
me the impression that there was a belief floating about that the Actor
stance only applied to cinematic, dramatic, or plotted games. I'm sorry I
misunderstood.
: Look at it this way...
[example snipped for space]
: However, this discussion is inherently treating the role-playing
: as a narrative... When you discuss these stances you go on to say things
: like "What are techniques which the Actor stance uses?" -- which leads
: to conversation about ways of conveying character and emotion to other
: players.
: That is perfectly valid discussion, but I would argue that there
: are *fundamental* aspects of the game which are overlooked if this is
: your only approach towards discussing the game.
I agree, and I would never advocate using the four-stance model as
the only approach to an analysis of a game. It was designed to represent
the process of viewing the game at the most basic levels and has, IMO,
little application in a number of important types of gaming analyses.
Like plot issues. Or the dramatist-simulationist issues. ;)
Which brings me, though, to a big problem I have with the
so-called "simulationist stances." Why in heaven's name are they CALLED
"simulationist stances" in the first place? They seem to me to be equally
relevant to even the most stringently dramatic and heavily plotted games.
The term "simulationist stances" is confusing to me, as I don't see any
connection between the analysis itself and the degree to which the game is
simulationist.
Help, John?
: Just look at the threads here on .advocacy -- there is an enormous
: amount of discussion devoted to analysis of how certain games played in
: terms of the *plot* and *resolution*. Take Alain's cat-demons campaign...
: Several times we have tried to analyze how the narrative of the PC's was
: resolved -- in terms of player input, and narrative technique, etc.
: What we are skipping by this is treatment of the environment as
: a thing unto itself. We take it as a given that the politics has put
: the PC's out of the loop for a time -- the important thing is how to
: make the narrative flow over several years...
Agreed. But the system you've proposed *doesn't* deal with the
"environment as a thing unto itself." Rather, it deals with types of
player perspectives on what aspects of the game are important. You're
still dealing with the meta-game.
: We are frequently ignoring issues of things like "what are the
: cat-demons" and "how does their nature create a fun environment in which
: to game". Rather, we are self-consciously looking at only the produced
: narrative of the PC's actions.
"How does the cat-demons' nature create a fun environment in which
to game?" is an issue that I can see your system being *very* useful for,
and I think that it could have been a very useful tool in analyzing
Alain's problem in the first place. In fact, it was used to do so,
although not consciously, and therefore not very rigorously. There was,
for example, discussion of whether or not skipping those two years would
be satisfying for the players at *all,* and this question, I think, would
have been clarified a good deal by use of your system.
For example, if Alain's players were strongly oriented towards the
Tourist perspective, then the fact that their characters' actions would
have little effect on the game world might have no bearing on the question
of whether or not they wanted to play out the futile war against the cat
demons. From the Tourist's perspective, the experience of interacting
with the cat demons and their culture (assuming they have one) would be of
paramount importance, and so the Tourist would be likely to resent the
decision to skip over the action in play.
From the perspective of...oh, damn. Sorry. I've not yet really
learned the terminology you settled upon, and so I've forgotten who this
is. From the perspective of, uh, the Guy Who Wants To Make A Difference
In The Game World, however, skipping over the two years to a point of time
in which the PCs will once again be able to affect change might be a Good
Thing, because this perspective considers dynamic change to be the paramount
aspect of the interaction with the game world. The option of playing the
NPCs would be an even Better Thing from this perspective, as it offers the
opportunity for the players to play the agents of the in-game changes and
important events.
The question of "what *are* these cat-demons, anyway?" however, is
not addressed by your system in any way that I can see. The answer to
this question is not described by the perspectives from which the players
approach the game, although the reasoning *behind* the initial creation of
the cat-demons might have been. (The creation of an elaborate culture for
the cat-demons might well reflect a Tourist or Scholar bias, for
example)
; That's *exactly* my point. The Four-Stance model doesn't define
: the phenomena that we are trying to delineate -- hence an additional
: model is needed to cover that gap.
We're in complete agreement on this point.
: Hello? No one has called them "narrative stances" -- that's why
: I used the term "simulationist stances".
Forgive me. I was interpreting "simulationist stances" to mean
"narrative stances for simulationist, as opposed to dramatic, games." I
am relieved to hear that this was not the intent. I am, however, still
confused by the term "simulationist stances." If you could explain the
reasoning behind the term to me, I'd appreciate it. As it stands, I find
it extremely misleading.
-- Sarah
Ennead
Just a few more comments on the "simulationist stances." I'm
sorry to be picking on an article which was, after all, written some time
ago, but there's some stuff in here which does seem to confirm my initial
uneasiness with the association of the narrative stances with dramatism in
games.
John H Kim (jh...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu), some time ago, wrote:
: ---------------------------(Cut Here)----------------------------------
: OK, in a recent post I had commented that the terms we were
: often using were heavily biased to the dramatic way of viewing games --
Again, I don't agree that they are. Except insofar as the
terminology itself might produce a visceral reaction from those who have
been burned by cinematic games that consciously used drama/film
terminology as a part of the game. Alas, I can't think of any way to get
around this, as I can't off-hand think of any substitute terminology more
clear than the ones we've been using.
: Well, in parallel to the dramatic stances, I might offer some
: possibilities for simulationist "stances".
Gee, John. Why did I get the impression that the narrative
stances were being confused with the issue of dramatism here? ;)
Seriously, though, I don't really think that "dramatic stances"
makes much sense as a term describing the narrative stances. Kevin and I
were using a definition of "narrative" which has little to do with drama.
Real Life, for example, is perceived by human beings as narrative, no
matter how undramatic or unstructured it might be. Perhaps this
terminology is problematic in this sort of forum, as it is hardly the
everyday usage of the word.
: The key thing for understanding
: the simulationist Point-of-View is to consider the gameworld as an
: alternate reality rather than a shared story.
Agreed. When you view this alternate reality from the outside,
however (as you do when you are involved in the process of world
creation), you are adopting a different stance than you do while playing a
character *within* the world. RPG requires the ability to do both, and
often the ability to flip back and forth between the two very quickly.
Story, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with this.
: While the dramatic
: stances are about participation in the plot around the protagonists...
No, they aren't. They are about how the game world and all that
occurs in it is viewed. This has nothing to do with plot, or with the
concept of the PCs as "protagonists." Only the IC stance and the Actor
are necessarily about the PCs at all. The Author stance is the one from
which all world-building takes place, for example, and world-building
usually takes place long before the PCs have even been conceived. The
Audience stance doesn't require there to be PCs either. When I read
someone's world write-ups, I am appreciating and evaluating their efforts
from the Audience stance.
: ...these stances are about the gameworld.
Well...yes and no. These are still meta-game issues. They are
"about the gameworld" only insofar as they define what the players want to
get *out* of the gameworld, but they do not themselves exist inside the
internal reality of the gameworld. They exist outside of it, in the
realms of the meta-game.
: One might picture them as
: invisible Points-of-View (POV's) looking over the character's shoulder...
You mean like the players? (Or am I the only one who often
imagines the players as creepy invisible voyeurs hovering about the PCs
and spying on them?)
Looking over these stances, it seems to me that there is more than
a little confusion over whether they are describing player types or
character types. Allow me to illustrate...
: -> "Scholar" is the stance interested in how things work in the
: gameworld. This could be the stickler in a hard sci-fi game who
: always wants to know how some gadget works -- or the analyzing
: mage in a fantasy game in search of the ultimate answers...
Okay. So is the "Scholar" here being used to refer to a player
type or a character type? Is that "stickler" in the SF game demanding to
know how the gadget works the character or the player? In this case, it
sounds like you're talking about character types. But then we get:
: -> "Tourist" is the stance interested in the details of the world for
: themselves.
That's a player type, yes?
: -> "Engineer" is a more interactive stance, interested creating things
: as part of the game-world. For example, you might like to have your
: character found an organization, or overthrow a political figure --
: just to leave your mark on the world.
And this is a player type, as the "you" here is referring to the
player -- because the player is an "Engineer," he likes to play characters
who leave their mark on the game world.
Do you see why I say that this is still meta-game stuff? Nothing
wrong with that, of course, but it's not really "about the game world" in
the sense that you seemed to be implying.
: -*-*-*-
: Now, of course it is easy to draw parallels -- one might say
: that "Engineer" is the equivalent of "Author", for example. I don't
: think that this is so, however.
No, I agree. Completely different things.
: Whereas an author looks
: at the Plot as the product to which he is contributing, the engineer
: looks at the World as the product to which he is contributing -- and
: there is a distinction, in my mind.
Here, however, is where I feel that the narrative stance model has
been grossly misunderstood. The Author stance is the one from which
world-creation happens. The Author stance is the place from which one
views the game world as an external phenomenon with an eye to contributing
to and changing it from *outside* (as opposed to wishing to change the
world from the inside, from the IC position). What on earth does plot
have to do with this?
I'm a bit confused, John. In your other article, you insisted
quite strenuously that you were not making connections between narrative
stance and plot issues, but here you seem to be doing just that. Is the
problem here that this is a re-post, and that after posting this however
many months ago, these misunderstandings were cleared up, perhaps? If
this is the case, then I apologize for starting the whole process over
again, but I really am finding it hard to allow these misuses of the model
pass by uncontested.
: Let me take an example. In a dramatic detective game, a PC
: gets into an easy fight as he beats up on a suspect. Another character
: tosses him a gun to threaten the guy with. As Author, the player thinks
: that it would be a neat plot twist if his character fumbles the catch,
: and the gun land where the suspect could grab it.
Yes. In a dramatic game, this would be a decision made from the
Author. (In a simulationist game, a player might well still think that
"it would be neat" if the character fumbled, but he wouldn't perceive it
as a "plot twist," and he wouldn't violate realism in order to make it
happen. The thought would probably, however, come more from the Audience
than from the Author, because the event in question is not one which the
player has the right or the power to determine.)
This is hardly the only sort of thing that happens from the stance
of Author, though. Character creation happens from the stance of Author.
So does world-building. So does a huge amount of GM decision-making, even
in the most stringently simulationist game.
: This isn't really covered from the simulationist stances. The
: scholar might be concerned that actual throw and catching be handled
: reasonably -- but none of the stances are concerned with controlling
: how the outcome comes about.
No. They are, however, concerned with which types of action are
focused on within the game. The Engineer will get annoyed if he is unable
to affect change on the game world. The Tourist will get annoyed if the
game world isn't sufficiently detailed and described. The Plumber will be
bored if attention in the game is too strongly focused on action
irrelevant to his character's inner psyche. And so on.
In this way, it seems to me that the "simulationist stances"
actually have *more* to do with drama than the narrative stances, because
they determine the player's preferences for which types of activities they
want the game to focus on -- ie, the "dramatic focus" of the game. I am
finding the term "simulationist stances" very inappropriate for these
distinctions.
: -*-*-*-
: In turn, the "scholar" and "tourist" stances are passive like
: the "Audience". However, the audience concern themselves first with
: the actions of the PC's...
No. That's not what "the narrative stance of Audience" means at
ALL. The narrative stance of the Audience is the position from which the
game world is viewed as an external phenomenon which can *not* be changed
by the viewer. When playing in an extremely detailed game world in which
the players are not permitted to change in-game details, the Audience is
the position from which the players read the GM's source material and
familiarize themselves with the world. Again, the PCs are likely not to
even *exist* yet when this happens.
: ...-- whereas the scholar and the tourist could
: care less about any of the central characters. They are interested
: in non-character-related things, and thus time spent in those stances
: means less emotional attachment to the PC's as protagonists.
But probably a greater emotional attachment to the game world
itself (she adds, from personal experience). Ever have an entire game
world destroyed? I think I reacted to that the way some people react to
character death. I still get all teary-eyed just *thinking* about it.
At any rate, I would like to state once more that I really like
the development of these stances. I think that they go a long way towards
acting as a shorthand for certain types of player preferences and
priorities that have an enormous effect on the games themselves. My main
problem with them is the term "simulationist stances," which seems to me
both inaccurate and misleading. These are meta-game preferences which
will surface in either a simulationist or a dramatic game, and which will
have a tremendous effect on the extent to which the game is satisfying to
its participants. In fact, I think that they have a greater influence in
a dramatic game, as dramatic games tend to enforce game focus (for the
purposes of dramatic structure and so forth) far more stringently than
simulationist games, and it is therefore in dramatic games that the
players are more likely to get ruffled by having their meta-game
preferences ignored or opposed (such has been my experience with dramatic
games in the past, at any rate).
-- Sarah
John Novak
> From the perspective of...oh, damn. Sorry. I've not yet really
>learned the terminology you settled upon, and so I've forgotten who this
>is. From the perspective of, uh, the Guy Who Wants To Make A Difference
>In The Game World,
Engineer. (I'd call it Architect, though.)
Funny how that one appeals to me more than the others...
> however, skipping over the two years to a point of time
>in which the PCs will once again be able to affect change might be a Good
>Thing, because this perspective considers dynamic change to be the paramount
>aspect of the interaction with the game world. The option of playing the
>NPCs would be an even Better Thing from this perspective, as it offers the
>opportunity for the players to play the agents of the in-game changes and
>important events.
<Cough cough cough cough cough>
That turns out not to be the case, for me at least.
Skipping over the two years completely would be annoying.
"You mean, it's two years later, and my master plan failed? But, why?
Why couldn't I do anyuthing to adjust the plan?" Ick, no.
Playing the agents of said change might be marginally more appealing
to me, but not very.
This sort of thing might also be useful in analyzing those long-term
games, where an evening might pass several months or even a year of
game time. When you're resolving time at those scales, I'd imagine
the player goals are going to change to leaving some sort of permanent
mark.
> The question of "what *are* these cat-demons, anyway?" however, is
>not addressed by your system in any way that I can see.
That would be the Scholar stance, my second after the Engineer, as I
understand it.
(Again, go figger.)
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
Scott. A. H. Ruggels
enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) wrote:
>Scott. A. H. Ruggels (scott....@3do.com) wrote:
>
>: Back a few months someone (I belivve it was mary, suggested a
>: simulationist stance list, similar to the narrative stance list.
>
>stance list consist of, and how would it differ from the narrative stance
>list? The four stances, as I understand them, are hardly absent from
>getting at here.
>
> -- Sarah
They were a bit more focussed towards, and a couple of them had no analogue to narrative stance. i don't remeber them clearly, but theywere something like:
Tourist
In Character
cultualist,
Empire builder
Gossip
Or something like this. I remeber them being pretty on target.
John H. Kim? Do you remeber this?
Scott
John H Kim
Right. Upon actually re-reading my original article on
Goals of Play (which I originally called "simulationist stances") I
can see a number of ways in which the first article was a little
unclear on the concept. I simply pulled out my saved copy of the o
riginal without regard to context or how things solidified after that.
So to clarify:
Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Just a few more comments on the "simulationist stances." I'm sorry
>to be picking on an article which was, after all, written some time ago,
>but there's some stuff in here which does seem to confirm my initial
>uneasiness with the association of the narrative stances with dramatism
>in games.
Fair point. My best (and coincidentally truest) answer is that
upon posing the idea I didn't have a firm grasp on what I was talking
about -- but of course now I have all the answers. I deliberately
paralled these "goals of play" after the Narrative Stances because
that was David's question to which I was responding...
>: David Berkman wrote [at the time of my original article]:
>:> Heck, what is the 'simulationst' viewpoint. What stances and perspectives
>:> make it up. What's the psychological/philosophical basis for them?
[...]
>John Kim wrote [i.e. my original article]:
>: Well, in parallel to the dramatic stances, I might offer some
>: possibilities for simulationist "stances".
Now, while developing this "parallel" I tried to make clear
that it was not an identity or an extension. As I mentioned, I had
pictured these as two different ways of dividing up the same phenomena
(i.e. like splitting up LEGO's by colors or by shapes).
-*-*-*-
In hindsight, I agree that these Goals of Play (which I called
"simulationist stances") are not entirely about the same phenomena as
the Narrative Stances. However, they are not entirely separate, either,
IMO.
The key point, in my mind, is the overlap of this "In-Character"
stance which is in both models -- but at the same time is the oddball of
both models, not quite matching the others.
-> In the Goals of Play, the "In-Character" goal could perhaps be
redefined as the "Plumber" - after the player's drive to plumb the
depths of the character. In this case, the invisible viewpoint
over the character's shoulder turns right and looks right into
her head.
-> In the Narrative Stances, the "In-Character" stance is still rather
the odd man out, IMO. Let's say my character makes a short speech
to intimidate some NPC's -- and I the player role-play that speech
aloud. Am I in "In-Character" stance because I am matching the
character, or am I in "Actor" stance because I am portraying the
role, or am I in "Author" stance because I am defining part of the
narrative?
Hmmm. You see, as a method actor, I was taught that the "Actor"
stance *is* the "In-Character" stance. You should never concentrate on
your gestures, or your voice, etc. -- rather you should try to relax,
get into your characters head, and just let the emotions show through.
I think that the "Narrative Stances" do reflect goals to some
degree -- and the separation of Actor and In-Character reflects this.
Actor stance is not simply the act of portraying character, or else it
would constantly overlap with In-Character (and in our discussion it
was stated that players shifted from stance to stance rather than
simultaneously being in two). Rather, Actor indicates a desire and
an enjoyment of socially performing the role.
-*-*-*-
>John H Kim (jh...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu), some time ago, wrote:
>: -> "Scholar" is the stance interested in how things work in the
>: gameworld. This could be the stickler in a hard sci-fi game who
>: always wants to know how some gadget works -- or the analyzing
>: mage in a fantasy game in search of the ultimate answers...
[...]
>: -> "Tourist" is the stance interested in the details of the world for
>: themselves.
[...]
>: -> "Engineer" is a more interactive stance, interested creating things
>: as part of the game-world. For example, you might like to have your
>: character found an organization, or overthrow a political figure --
>: just to leave your mark on the world.
>
> And this is a player type, as the "you" here is referring to the
>player -- because the player is an "Engineer," he likes to play characters
>who leave their mark on the game world.
Well, yes and no. I think it is closer to call The Engineer (or
more appropriately "Architect") a player *stance* or *goal*. The vast
majority of players are not "architects" to the exclusion of other
goals -- but at times they will be interested in being "architects".
One of the things of interest is how players switch goals/stances
during the course of a campaign or session -- so calling them static
"player types" would be a mistake.
-*-*-*-
>
>: Whereas an author looks at the Plot as the product to which he is
>: contributing, the engineer looks at the World as the product to which
>: he is contributing -- and there is a distinction, in my mind.
>
> Here, however, is where I feel that the narrative stance model has
>been grossly misunderstood. The Author stance is the one from which
>world-creation happens. The Author stance is the place from which one
>views the game world as an external phenomenon with an eye to contributing
>to and changing it from *outside* (as opposed to wishing to change the
>world from the inside, from the IC position). What on earth does plot
>have to do with this?
>
> I'm a bit confused, John. In your other article, you insisted
>quite strenuously that you were not making connections between narrative
>stance and plot issues, but here you seem to be doing just that.
True -- all I can say is that it was the first time I expressed
the idea and it was still rather formative. As you know, "plot" is a
very nebulous concept especially around these parts. Let me try
rephrasing this with the benefit of discussion and reflections:
"Whereas the Author stance looks at the narrative of the game
externally with an eye towards modifying it; the Architect looks at
the game-world directly as his canvas. These are separate points of
view -- each sees the game from a different perspective."
-*-*-*-
>
>: In turn, the "scholar" and "tourist" stances are passive like
>: the "Audience". However, the audience concern themselves first with
>: the actions of the PC's...
>
> No. That's not what "the narrative stance of Audience" means at
>ALL. The narrative stance of the Audience is the position from which the
>game world is viewed as an external phenomenon which can *not* be changed
>by the viewer. When playing in an extremely detailed game world in which
>the players are not permitted to change in-game details, the Audience is
>the position from which the players read the GM's source material and
>familiarize themselves with the world. Again, the PCs are likely not to
>even *exist* yet when this happens.
Hmmm. I had a point here, it was just poorly expressed. Let
me again try to rephrase...
"During play, the Audience stance is inclusive of *all* passive
viewing. By its nature, the majority of play will be about the PC's --
hence when we talk about Audience stance during play, the majority of
what we are talking about is the viewing of other PC's actions (or the
actions of closely related NPC's).
In contrast, when we talk about the Scholar and Tourist, we are
focussing on how the game-world is viewed independent of the PC's.
Hence when we discuss the goal of Scholar as a thing, we are talking
about the game-world and what players appreciate about it -- whereas
when we talk about the stance of Audience as a thing we are more
likely to devolve into discussion of story, theme, etc. "
John H Kim
OK - a quick reply to Sarah regarding the original article
regarding "simulationist stances". The original article was indeed
written in a bit of a backlash, at a time when I perceived that
literary/dramatic analysis was taking over. As I recall, I was
responding to David, who had suggested that the "simulationist POV"
was essentially non-existant since it lacked a paradigm.
In hindsight (the best way to look at a problem, IMO), there
would have been better ways to approach it, but se la guerre... My
view on these has naturally evolved since the original article, so
don't take it as gospel on my present opinion.
Sarah <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Which brings me, though, to a big problem I have with the so-called
>"simulationist stances." Why in heaven's name are they CALLED
>"simulationist stances" in the first place? They seem to me to be equally
>relevant to even the most stringently dramatic and heavily plotted games.
>The term "simulationist stances" is confusing to me, as I don't see any
>connection between the analysis itself and the degree to which the game
>is simulationist.
Guilty as charged. Unfortunately, I can't really think of a
better term for these "stances". Other sources have occaisionally
made similar distinction of these as "types of players" -- but I think
that is a fallacy because most players move back and forth between
different "stances".
I'm sort of stuck for an alternate term: "goals of play"?
"interaction stances"?
(BTW, I am not convinced that the visceral reaction to the terminology
of Actor/Author/Audience can be dismissed -- the implications which
go with those terms can be rather strong.)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
>
>: What we are skipping by this is treatment of the environment as
>: a thing unto itself. We take it as a given that the politics has put
>: the PC's out of the loop for a time -- the important thing is how to
>: make the narrative flow over several years...
>
> Agreed. But the system you've proposed *doesn't* deal with the
>"environment as a thing unto itself." Rather, it deals with types of
>player perspectives on what aspects of the game are important. You're
>still dealing with the meta-game.
Well, yes and no. Discussion of the world as itself is discussion
of world design (as distinct from campaign design). The world is
discussed on its own terms without reference to the players or the PC's.
The "goals of play" are an intermediate step -- they are a metagame
description of the players direct interaction with the game-world.
The narrative stances, IMO, are one more step removed -- since
they refer to interaction with the narrative, which in turn reflects
the game-world environment. Note that they still refer to points-of-view
Hence, let's think a moment at the levels on which we can analyze
a campaign:
1) The Game-World as itself: Looking at the background in terms of
creativity, cohesiveness, believability, etc.
2) The Characters as themselves: Looking at each character in terms of
depth of personality, pro-active-ness, etc. We might also throw
in here looking at the PC's as a social group...
3) The Player's Interaction within the game world: This includes the
"goals of play" like Tourist, Architect, etc. This also includes
study of "play balance" and power level, etc.
4) The Player's Interaction with the narrative: This includes the
"narrative stances" of Author/Audience/Actor/In-Character as well
as looking at the ways in which the player has control over play
(like Plot Points).
Hmmm. I guess my conclusion here is that we've barely scratched
the surface of the elemennts of the game.
-*-*-*-
>
>: We are frequently ignoring issues of things like "what are the
>: cat-demons" and "how does their nature create a fun environment in which
>: to game". Rather, we are self-consciously looking at only the produced
>: narrative of the PC's actions.
>
>"How does the cat-demons' nature create a fun environment in which
>to game?" is an issue that I can see your system being *very* useful for,
>and I think that it could have been a very useful tool in analyzing
>Alain's problem in the first place.
[...]
>From the perspective of...oh, damn. Sorry. I've not yet really learned
>the terminology you settled upon, and so I've forgotten who this is.
>From the perspective of, uh, the Guy Who Wants To Make A Difference
>In The Game World, however, skipping over the two years to a point of time
>in which the PCs will once again be able to affect change might be a Good
>Thing, because this perspective considers dynamic change to be the paramount
>aspect of the interaction with the game world.
Hmmm. I had originally suggested "engineer", but I like someone
else's suggestion of "architect" better. @-)
All I really have to say is that you have a good point -- and
we should start asking these sorts of questions...
Rodney Payne
jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
> In hindsight, I agree that these Goals of Play (which I called
>"simulationist stances") are not entirely about the same phenomena as
>the Narrative Stances. However, they are not entirely separate, either,
>IMO.
It seems that the Goals of Play look at what we want from a game, while
the narrative stances examine some of the ways we achieve those goals.
> -> In the Narrative Stances, the "In-Character" stance is still rather
> the odd man out, IMO. Let's say my character makes a short speech
> to intimidate some NPC's -- and I the player role-play that speech
> aloud. Am I in "In-Character" stance because I am matching the
> character, or am I in "Actor" stance because I am portraying the
> role, or am I in "Author" stance because I am defining part of the
> narrative?
To avert this overlap, I divide the narrative stances into two
categories: perceptual and creative. The perceptual stances, audience and
in-character, examine how the player gathers information about
the setting - as a character, restricting this information to what the
character senses, or as an objective third-party. The creative stances
are adopted when the player adds to the setting - playing a character
(actor), or to the setting itself (author).
With regard to your question above, the stance adopted is actor. The
player is creating part of the setting by making a speech.
> Hmmm. You see, as a method actor, I was taught that the "Actor"
>stance *is* the "In-Character" stance. You should never concentrate on
>your gestures, or your voice, etc. -- rather you should try to relax,
>get into your characters head, and just let the emotions show through.
An interesting observation. This looks to the transfer between
in-character and actor stances. The `method' player is one who has a
strong perceptual preference for the in-character stance, and, while in
the actor stance, takes an intuitive approach. The leap between stances
is quick, mentally seamless. For the more `classical' player (myself),
the leap is longer - I think, `What would my character say here, what
would her/his gestures be?' I am consciously processing the information
gained from the in-character stance. This is not to say that the process
is slow; but I am more aware of it than a `method' player would,
presumably, be.
Yet another type player may take the information from the audience
stance, and ask what would make the game itself more `interesting' when
determining what, as an actor, s/he will do.
Of course, this is all straining my memory terribly, so any and all of
the above comment may be modified or totally disowned at any stage.
--
Rodney Payne | The artist should organise his life. Here
| is a precise record of the time taken by
spur...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | my daily chores: I get up at 7.18,
rgp...@cfs01.cc.monash.edu.au | inspiration 10.23 to 11.47.... Eric Satie
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
In article <4n7tmr$7...@nadine.teleport.com>, enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) writes:
|>
|> I really think that the four-stance model has been badly
|> misunderstood here. It is not meant to define the same phenomena that
|> you are attempting to delineate at *all.* You are describing perspectives
|> from which the game is enjoyed and evaluated by different types of players
|> (or by the same players in different "modes"). This is not at all the
|> same thing as the basic narrative stances from which the game is viewed at
|> the most fundamental level.
You seem to feel that the narrative stances are not particularly
well understood, despite their broad use here on rgfa. Would you
like to help edit the short definitions in my rgfa glossary file?
You could say no. But then you would be promoting ignorance,
confusion, and ill-feeling, and that would not be a nice thing
at all. No, this isn't an attempt to send you on a guilt trip. :)
-----
***Narrative Stances***
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.
The basic idea is that a player can perceive the game from one of four
basic viewpoints: the Actor stance, the Audience, the Author stance,
and the In-Character stance.
Actor stance -- the player's primary interest is creating a convincing
and interesting characterization for the other people
in the game.
Audience stance -- the player's primary interest is in viewing the game
as an outsider looking in. This stance is the stance
from which things like dramatic irony or historical
accuracy are judged.
Author stance -- the player's primary interest is in creating an interesting
set of characters and game situations. The player decides
what goes into the character -- ``Things will be more
interesting if Jon is a member of the hated N'zee tribe'' --
from the outside.
In-Character -- the player's primary interest in trying to create a deep
rapport with his character, and as far as it is possible,
being the character and feeling his thoughts and emotions.
-----
Neel
Bruce Baugh
> I'm sort of stuck for an alternate term: "goals of play"?
>"interaction stances"?
Let's see -
- mode
- motivation
- style
- incentive
Somewhere in the intersection of those is the attitude I bring to play.
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
Scott. A. H. Ruggels
mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote:
>
>Someone--I think it may have been John Kim--raised the possibility that
>by using the four-stances terminology we were weighting the discussion
>towards a cinematic metaphor for gameplay, and suggested trying to
>develop a different approach for games which don't use the
>game-as-cinema metaphor so heavily.
>
>eventually came up with:
>
>IC -- taking pleasure in being inside your character's head
>Re-enactor -- taking pleasure in getting details of character and
> culture "just right"
>Tourist -- enjoying the setting
>Scholar -- enjoying figuring out the setting and how things
> work (close to tourist but there may be a distinction)
>Engineer -- enjoying making changes, through the character, in
> the gameworld (starting a cult, overthrowing a kingdom, etc.)
>Tactician -- enjoying meeting and overcoming technical challenges
>
>"Actor" brings with it suggestions of playing to an audience, whereas
>that someone is telling you a story, whereas some "tourist" players
>really could care less about story--they just want to visit interesting
>tactician, and scholar as distinct possibilities.
>
Thank you Mary,
that is exactly it.
Scott. A. H. Ruggels
Thank you John
Scott
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 14 May 1996, Ennead wrote:
> Seriously, though, I don't really think that "dramatic stances"
> makes much sense as a term describing the narrative stances. Kevin and I
> were using a definition of "narrative" which has little to do with drama.
> Real Life, for example, is perceived by human beings as narrative, no
> matter how undramatic or unstructured it might be. Perhaps this
> terminology is problematic in this sort of forum, as it is hardly the
> everyday usage of the word.
The narrative stances, as I and Sarah originally proposed them, had
nothing to do with drama, and everything to do with how real people make
sense of their lived experience. We did note at the outset that this was
a particular humanistic model of human nature that, while mainstream, was
by no means universal--if you disagree with the basic assumption (that
people create meaning out of their experience by constructing narratives)
then you probably will not find the narrative stances very helpful. If
you accept the assumption, however, then you will be able to apply them
in any conceivable game, to one degree or another.
That said, the narrative stance model derived from a conversation, in
which I proposed that we analyze the metaphors by which the authors of
many rpgs (but not all) describe what it is that you do when you play an
rpg. These mataphors are overwhelmingly narrative, in a more
conventional sense--they treat rpgs as story. Sarah (among others)
responded to that post, and Sarah and I ultimately synthesized the
current narrative stance model from that conversation. I can repost the
finished article, if anybody cares :) Thus, John's perception that the
narrative stances applied mostly to dramatic games is understandable,
given the original derivation of the analysis.
All my best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 15 May 1996, John H Kim wrote:
> Right. Upon actually re-reading my original article on
> Goals of Play (which I originally called "simulationist stances") I
> can see a number of ways in which the first article was a little
> unclear on the concept. I simply pulled out my saved copy of the o
> riginal without regard to context or how things solidified after that.
> So to clarify:
> Fair point. My best (and coincidentally truest) answer is that
> upon posing the idea I didn't have a firm grasp on what I was talking
> about -- but of course now I have all the answers. I deliberately
> paralled these "goals of play" after the Narrative Stances because
> that was David's question to which I was responding...
I continue to be impressed by your decency and civility, John. You are a
model for all of us :)
I remember your conversation with David, now that you mention it . . .
> I think that the "Narrative Stances" do reflect goals to some
> degree -- and the separation of Actor and In-Character reflects this.
> Actor stance is not simply the act of portraying character, or else it
> would constantly overlap with In-Character (and in our discussion it
> was stated that players shifted from stance to stance rather than
> simultaneously being in two). Rather, Actor indicates a desire and
> an enjoyment of socially performing the role.
I liked Rodney Payne's division of the stances into perceptual and
creative categories, which addressed a similar point, it seems to me.
The IC stance is the odd man out in part because it does not derive from
the theatrical metaphor (from which the other labels are taken). The
method actor approaches this, however--IC applies the way a method actor
goes about making sense of setting and events, while Actor applies to a
more classical, representational approach. I think Rodney also addressed
this, in a recent post. Maybe it was someone else :) You invoke the
actor stance when you think about how to represent your character to the
rest of the troupe (or even to yourself). You invoke the IC stance when
you seek to experience the game events as closely as possible to how a
real person might experience them--I originall proposed a much more
clumsy term for this--the "lived experience stance" or some such, but
Sarah and I settled on IC for brevity and clarity.
[snip]
> True -- all I can say is that it was the first time I expressed
> the idea and it was still rather formative. As you know, "plot" is a
> very nebulous concept especially around these parts. Let me try
> rephrasing this with the benefit of discussion and reflections:
>
> "Whereas the Author stance looks at the narrative of the game
> externally with an eye towards modifying it; the Architect looks at
> the game-world directly as his canvas. These are separate points of
> view -- each sees the game from a different perspective."
If all games of necessity will wind up as narratives, then what is the
difference? It seems to me that the Architect's goals are a subset of
the Author's. I appreciate the value in making the distinction,
especially for a discussion of non-plotted games (I dislike the term
"simulationist," since all of my plotted games are simulationist at
heart, and still have strong plots). But it still seems to me that the
Architect is writing a setting, much as, say, Tolkien did.
[snip]
> Hmmm. I had a point here, it was just poorly expressed. Let
> me again try to rephrase...
>
> "During play, the Audience stance is inclusive of *all* passive
> viewing. By its nature, the majority of play will be about the PC's --
> hence when we talk about Audience stance during play, the majority of
> what we are talking about is the viewing of other PC's actions (or the
> actions of closely related NPC's).
>
> In contrast, when we talk about the Scholar and Tourist, we are
> focussing on how the game-world is viewed independent of the PC's.
> Hence when we discuss the goal of Scholar as a thing, we are talking
> about the game-world and what players appreciate about it -- whereas
> when we talk about the stance of Audience as a thing we are more
> likely to devolve into discussion of story, theme, etc. "
Again, these seem to me to be subsets of audience, rather than distinct
stances in their own right. Now the terms "tourist" and "scholar" do not
strike me as intuitively "independent of the PCs,"--they could just as
easily have to do with character motivations--but accepting your usage
above, what distinguished them from "audience," as Sarah has recently
defined it (and with which I fully agree)? I have to say that in some
games my attention is more on the finely crafted details of the setting
than it is on the actions of the game--this is especially true of some of
the older dungeon crawls that stand out in my memory--which I would still
want to include under the rubric of audience. You haven't denied that,
per se, but I'd like to affirm it :)
The audience stance is a meta-game, player stance (as are all of the
stances) that incorporates all aspects of a game, it seems to me, in
which the player stands back and appreciates the game, from a detached
perspective.
Thats not quite right :)
Whatever, I'm out of time.
My best,
Kevin
Ennead
John H Kim (jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: Sarah <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
: >Which brings me, though, to a big problem I have with the so-called
: >"simulationist stances." Why in heaven's name are they CALLED
: >"simulationist stances" in the first place? They seem to me to be equally
: >relevant to even the most stringently dramatic and heavily plotted games.
: >The term "simulationist stances" is confusing to me, as I don't see any
: >connection between the analysis itself and the degree to which the game
: >is simulationist.
: Guilty as charged. Unfortunately, I can't really think of a
: better term for these "stances". Other sources have occaisionally
: made similar distinction of these as "types of players" -- but I think
: that is a fallacy because most players move back and forth between
: different "stances".
I agree. My slip into the "types of players" fallacy was the
result of an initial misreading of the typology. I do see now that they
are, indeed, "stances," as though players certainly do vary in which of
the stances they privilege, most will step into each one of them at some
point in the game.
: I'm sort of stuck for an alternate term: "goals of play"?
: "interaction stances"?
I'm stuck too. "Strategic stances" or "tactical stances" were
suggested by Kip, but then we both immediately rejected them on the dual
grounds of unfortunate connotation and lack of clarity. Ugh. I'm
stymied.
: (BTW, I am not convinced that the visceral reaction to the terminology
: of Actor/Author/Audience can be dismissed -- the implications which
: go with those terms can be rather strong.)
I know that they can't be dismissed. I've tried coming up with
alternative terminology. How would "Creator," "Spectator," "Portrayer,"
and our old friend "In-Character" (or simply "Inside?") strike you?
I'm unhappy with "Creator," personally, as it seems to imply that
the rest of the game is non-creative. It does, however, remove the
novelistic metaphor that "Author" imposes.
"Spectator" is offered to try to off-set the connotations many
feel "Audience" carries. This is a bit intellectualized for me, though,
as to my mind "Audience" does not carry dramatic connotations. Since
others have such problems with the term, though, I'm perfectly willing to
switch over to Spectator, as the two mean pretty much the same thing to
me.
"Portrayer" gags me. The stance represented by the term "Actor"
means, to me, just *that.* With Portrayer, you run into problems of
confusion between the Actor's stance and the IC one, IMO. But again, if
it will help...
I kinda like "Inside" as an alternate term for the IC stance, as I
think that it does nicely differentiate, say, a *character's* witnessing
of a scene in the game (IC stance) from the *player's* (Audience/Spectator
stance). It is, however, not nearly as immediately obvious in meaning as
IC; I offer it merely as a toss-off.
: -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
: > Agreed. But the system you've proposed *doesn't* deal with the
: >"environment as a thing unto itself." Rather, it deals with types of
: >player perspectives on what aspects of the game are important. You're
: >still dealing with the meta-game.
: Well, yes and no. Discussion of the world as itself is discussion
: of world design (as distinct from campaign design). The world is
: discussed on its own terms without reference to the players or the PC's.
: The "goals of play" are an intermediate step -- they are a metagame
: description of the players direct interaction with the game-world.
Okay. I see what you mean now. I remember the discussion of
Alain's problem dealing a good deal with these sorts of issues,
particularly in the "If I were a player, I'd hate this, and here's why"
and "If your players want to get X out of the game, then you shouldn't do
Y, and here's why" types of responses. This typology would have been
particularly useful there, IMO.
: The narrative stances, IMO, are one more step removed -- since
: they refer to interaction with the narrative, which in turn reflects
: the game-world environment.
Agreed. They are very far removed from the actual game, which
might explain why they are of so little use when it comes to analysis of
Real Game Problems like the one Alain proposed. (I know that Kevin
Hardwick *has* found them to be of great use in his own games, but he's
been consciously dealing with a much more radical shift in gaming style
than most people around here are looking for)
: Note that they still refer to points-of-view
: Hence, let's think a moment at the levels on which we can analyze
: a campaign:
: 1) The Game-World as itself: Looking at the background in terms of
: creativity, cohesiveness, believability, etc.
Check. Would you consider issues of genre to be relevant to this
level of discussion, just out of curiosity? Or does that veer dangerously
into the meta-game, running the risk of soiling the purity of such
discussion? I can see it both ways. In a Champs game, for example, I
just don't think it's *possible* to discuss the believability of the game
world without confessing, "Well, yes, in this world ordinary people *can*
survive falls from great heights. That's part of the genre of the world."
OTOH, I would say that in a game world in which physics and such work
realistically, issues of PC script immunity do *not* belong in this
category, as that is a meta-game issue which does not properly belong to
the world itself, but only to the games taking place within it.
Does that make sense? I fear I'm not being terribly clear.
: 2) The Characters as themselves: Looking at each character in terms of
: depth of personality, pro-active-ness, etc. We might also throw
: in here looking at the PC's as a social group...
Check.
: 3) The Player's Interaction within the game world: This includes the
: "goals of play" like Tourist, Architect, etc. This also includes
: study of "play balance" and power level, etc.
I'd personally consider discussions of script immunity and the
like to take place on this level.
: 4) The Player's Interaction with the narrative: This includes the
: "narrative stances" of Author/Audience/Actor/In-Character as well
: as looking at the ways in which the player has control over play
: (like Plot Points).
Hmm. I think there's a fuzzy area between 3) and 4), which isn't
necessarily a Bad Thing, but should be noted. The use of Plot Points and
similar mechanics is related to the Player's Interaction with the
Narrative, in that it forces a shift of stance (from IC to Author, for
example) where otherwise none might occur. It also, however, has much to
do with 3), because it also forces a shift of *those* stances. Issues of
pacing also seem to me to be "viewable" at either level 3 level 4.
All the same, I think that this is okay. The discussion of pacing
issues in terms of how they might affect things on the third level will be
considerably *different* than they would be if looking at the effects on
level 4. I think the distinction still works.
: Hmmm. I guess my conclusion here is that we've barely scratched
: the surface of the elemennts of the game.
That's for sure. I very much like your breakdown of the levels of
analysis, though.
How would you say that the meta-game issues that emerge in the
co-creation of a game world fit into all this?
: All I really have to say is that you have a good point -- and
: we should start asking these sorts of questions...
I agree. (That we should start asking these questions, that is;
obviously I agree that I have a good point ;->) I think you've made a
great start here. I'll give the matter some thought and see if anything
else occurs.
-- Sarah
Ennead
John H Kim (jh...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu) wrote:
: Ennead <enn...@teleport.com> wrote:
: In hindsight, I agree that these Goals of Play (which I called
: "simulationist stances") are not entirely about the same phenomena as
: the Narrative Stances. However, they are not entirely separate, either,
: IMO.
No. Well, they can't be *entirely* separate, can they? Obviously
all aspects of the game are going to have some impact on and relation to
one another.
: The key point, in my mind, is the overlap of this "In-Character"
: stance which is in both models -- but at the same time is the oddball of
: both models, not quite matching the others.
In the Narrative Stances, IC is the oddball because it is the only
one of the four that is internal to the game world, rather than outside of
it. If the other three stances hover above the game, looking down upon it
from the heights of the meta-game, then the IC stance is down below them,
within the game reality itself. This is the reason that the IC is, to my
mind, the most *significant* of the four when it comes to describing RPG:
it is the stance that gives RPG its special flavor and differentiates it
from other media, such as improv theater.
In the Goals of Play (I'd *still* like to come up with a term
incorporating the word "stance" somehow, but until then, this will do),
the IC is the oddball out, IMO, because it doesn't belong there at all.
Quite frankly, I don't think that it fits into the paradigm. The
great power of the Goals of Play, it seems to me, is that they *transcend*
the in-game/meta-game disctinction altogether. The Engineer wants to
affect change in the game world from within it *or* from without: it is
the stance of both the player who wants to help the GM with world design
*and* the player whose character wants to overthrow the king. The Plumber
represents the desire to plumb the depths of the character *either* from
within the head of the character (in the case of an introverted and
self-absorped character, for example) *or* from the outside perspective of
the player, who may spend hours attempting to understand the hidden
motivations of a completely oblivious character.
Where does the "IC Stance" fit into all of this? To my mind, it
doesn't, and I think that the typology would be much more clear if it were
removed from the list. For one thing, it would help to make it clear that
these stances transcend the in-game/meta-game boundaries, and this might
also reduce the frequency of people saying, "Oh, I see. It's just types
of players."
: -> In the Goals of Play, the "In-Character" goal could perhaps be
: redefined as the "Plumber" - after the player's drive to plumb the
: depths of the character. In this case, the invisible viewpoint
: over the character's shoulder turns right and looks right into
: her head.
Okay. Makes sense to me. It seems to me that "In-Character" was
a bit of a misnomer, which might have been what threw me off.
: -> In the Narrative Stances, the "In-Character" stance is still rather
: the odd man out, IMO. Let's say my character makes a short speech
: to intimidate some NPC's -- and I the player role-play that speech
: aloud. Am I in "In-Character" stance because I am matching the
: character, or am I in "Actor" stance because I am portraying the
: role, or am I in "Author" stance because I am defining part of the
: narrative?
That depends on what you're doing. If you are thinking purely as
character, then you are delivering the speech from the IC stance. If you
(as *player,* not as character) are consciously thinking about getting
your tonal quality just right, then you've jumped into the Actor stance.
When you made the decision to deliver the speech in real time, rather than
in summary, you acted from the Author's stance (all pacing decisions are
made from the stance of Author). Of course, if *you* didn't make that
decision at all, but were just staying in character, then you might not
have ever left the IC stance, and it was the GM, by deciding that the game
would be better served by staying in real time and demanding that you
really deliver the speech, rather than substituting a summary or (ugh!) a
mechanic, who took up the stance of Author.
The narrative stances don't serve well to describe actions, but
rather the modes of perspective from which those actions arise. The
competent method actor's IC Stance will look very much like a non-method
actor's Actor Stance from the outside. If both parties are good at their
respective acting styles, in fact, it might well be impossible to
distinguish between them, but the fact remains that they are utilizing
two entirely different stances.
: Hmmm. You see, as a method actor, I was taught that the "Actor"
: stance *is* the "In-Character" stance. You should never concentrate on
: your gestures, or your voice, etc. -- rather you should try to relax,
: get into your characters head, and just let the emotions show through.
Method acting is, however, not the only type of acting. Nor are
there many "pure" method actors in the world. Many actors use a mixture
of method and traditional techniques, particularly for roles which are
particularly demanding physically or metrically. Method actors who act
Shakespeare, for example, will often adopt some more traditional
techniques, as no matter how deeply you get into your character's head,
it's *still* hard to speak in iambic poetry and sound natural doing it.
But this is a dangerous digression, as I think we all agree that
acting, while it is related to RPG, is not necessary to its enjoyment.
All the same, I would suggest that while you might be a competent enough
method actor *never* to utilize the Actor Stance (and more power to you,
if this is the case!), the stance is used by many role-players. No matter
how deeply I may feel myself to "be" my character in play, for example, my
voice will never be deep and well-modulated. If I wish to indicate to the
others that my character's voice *is* deep and well-modulated, then I have
two options. I can describe the character's tonal quality in narrative,
thereafter leaving it to them to imagine my voice when I speak
in-character sounding like that, *or* I can endeavor to learn to "put on"
a deep, well-modulated voice, possibly practicing it beforehand to learn
how to do it. If I choose the latter option, then I am going to have to
adopt the stance of Actor.
Similarly, method acting notwithstanding, the table-top RPGs I am
accustomed to are played sitting down. Players do not run around acting
out their character's motions. If the characters are walking, the players
are still *sitting.* They are likely to act their character's small
gestures, but not their large kinetic movements. On occasion, however, a
player *will* stand up and actually simulate larger movements. This
usually is done for effect -- to indicate that a big hulking brute is
looming over a smaller, frailer character, for example, it would not be
uncommon for the player of the brute to stand up and actually *loom,* thus
emphasizing the physical discrepancy (and corresponding sense of menace)
implicit in the situation. This is a utilization of the Actor Stance. It
is making a meta-game decision based on the best way to *portray* the
in-game reality through acting out, rather than verbal description. If
this sort of thing is really completely IC for you, then you're playing a
LARP, not a table-top game. The convention of table-top games is that
they are played sitting, with physical acting out kept to a minimum; the
decision to act out a situation on the gross kinetic level is therefore
nearly always a conscious one (with the obvious exception of excitable
players who just get carried away with their IC stance, of course ;->).
Just for the record, BTW, I almost *always* go for the narrative
approach in games. I am a much stronger writer than an actor, and my
strengths are verbal, not physical. I am uncomfortable with games in
which much emphasis is placed on portrayal of this sort. Rather than
strengthening my SOD, it shatters it. But this is a matter of preference
which varies widely within my own group. Some of the people I play with
like to use the Actor Stance a lot -- they rarely remain sitting for very
long; others rarely touch it. Over time, we've developed a style of play
with which everyone can feel comfortable, but there was a period of time in
which I got stuck in games that were far too Actor-emphasized for my
liking.
("No, I'm *not* going to stand up just because you're standing
and my character is supposed to be next to you. Use your imagination.
That's what it's there for." "Stop waving that invisible sword at me,
dammit. I'm *not* going to wave an invisible sword back at you. I know
nothing about swordplay, and my tactics are not going to bear any resemblance
to my character's. Besides, you're making me nervous. Go sit back down and
get *away* from me!")
: I think that the "Narrative Stances" do reflect goals to some
: degree -- and the separation of Actor and In-Character reflects this.
: Actor stance is not simply the act of portraying character, or else it
: would constantly overlap with In-Character (and in our discussion it
: was stated that players shifted from stance to stance rather than
: simultaneously being in two). Rather, Actor indicates a desire and
: an enjoyment of socially performing the role.
Well...not really. Actor indicates a perspective outside of the
game from which the player decides to portray action by acting out when
ordinarily (according to the conventions of table-top RPG), this would not
be necessary. When, in the course of a table-top game, a player chooses
to stand up, for example, he is nearly always adopting the stance of
Actor. Speaking in accent or dialect also requires the adoption of the
stance of Actor.
One of the things that this points out, of course, is that the IC
conventions of table-top gaming are rather specific to the conventions of
this style. To be "in-character" in this context means to think and speak
in-character, to take on the character's facial expressions and possibly
his small gestures. It does not, however, include getting so far in
character that one must mimic the character's gross physical movements,
such as walking or even standing. At that point, the line is drawn, and
it is understood that players will not regularly "act out" such aspects of
their character's activities. The decision to do so (in a table-top game,
as opposed to a LARP) will come from a meta-game perspective.
: One of the things of interest is how players switch goals/stances
: during the course of a campaign or session -- so calling them static
: "player types" would be a mistake.
Yes. I see now that this is the case. I didn't fully understand
before.
: "Whereas the Author stance looks at the narrative of the game
: externally with an eye towards modifying it; the Architect looks at
: the game-world directly as his canvas. These are separate points of
: view -- each sees the game from a different perspective."
I would argue that the Architect is a common stance in those
notorious railroaded games. When players take on the Architect stance,
they become obsessed with derailing the train. I think that this falls
into a fuzzy area between "affecting the narrative of the game" and
"viewing the game-world directly as his canvas." It seems to me that
there are many situations in which players operating from the stance of
Architect want to do *both.*
Again, I think that the Goals of Play typology works best if they
are permitted to transcend these sorts of barriers.
: "During play, the Audience stance is inclusive of *all* passive
: viewing.
No, it isn't. It refers only to the *players'* passive viewing,
to the position from which the game can be appreciated and observed
completely apart and aside from the character's perspective and
perceptions. Passive viewing by the character takes place from the IC
stance, not the stance of Audience.
: By its nature, the majority of play will be about the PC's --
: hence when we talk about Audience stance during play, the majority of
: what we are talking about is the viewing of other PC's actions (or the
: actions of closely related NPC's).
: In contrast, when we talk about the Scholar and Tourist, we are
: focussing on how the game-world is viewed independent of the PC's.
: Hence when we discuss the goal of Scholar as a thing, we are talking
: about the game-world and what players appreciate about it -- whereas
: when we talk about the stance of Audience as a thing we are more
: likely to devolve into discussion of story, theme, etc. "
I still don't quite see this. It seems to me that one of the
great distinctions between, say, Scholar and Audience is that the
Scholar represents a *goal,* and a goal which might manifest either
in-character or in the meta-game, while the Audience represents a
meta-game perspective of the player, and cannot, by definition, happen
in-character. There is no in-character Audience. The Audience is defined
in terms of what the *player* is experiencing; if the character is the one experiencing
it, the stance is IC. The Scholar, on the other hand, may either accumulate
knowledge about the game world in-character or as a player; the term
refers with equal validity to both phenomena.
-- Sarah
Ennead
Neelakantan Krishnaswami (ne...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
: You seem to feel that the narrative stances are not particularly
: well understood, despite their broad use here on rgfa. Would you
: like to help edit the short definitions in my rgfa glossary file?
I'd love to. It does seem to be emerging, though, that perhaps my
understanding of the narrative stances is not, in fact, the canon I had
believed it to be. <smile> Rodney's understanding, for example, seems
very different from my own, and the horrible suspicion that perhaps Kevin
has yet a *third* understanding of the terms is now beginning to surface.
O Horrors. I'll gladly give you my definitions, though, for whatever
they're worth.
: You could say no. But then you would be promoting ignorance,
: confusion, and ill-feeling, and that would not be a nice thing
: at all. No, this isn't an attempt to send you on a guilt trip. :)
I'm not quite sure if there's an Implication lurking here
somewhere, but if there is, then I resent it. ;)
: -----
: ***Narrative Stances***
: 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.
: The basic idea is that a player can perceive the game from one of four
: basic viewpoints: the Actor stance, the Audience, the Author stance,
: and the In-Character stance.
: Actor stance -- the player's primary interest is creating a convincing
: and interesting characterization for the other people
: in the game.
I don't use the term this way. It's not so much a "primary
interest" as a mode of viewing the game which must be adopted to do
certain things within it.
Actor Stance
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. This is an important aspect of LARP, but even in table-top
gaming it often manifests: when, for example, a player stands up in a
sedentary table-top game, it is often an indication that he has
momentarily adopted the stance of Actor.
The Actor Stance is the one in which the player contemplates what
he can do to portray his character more effectively to the other
participants in the game. It is therefore by nature a meta-game stance,
removed from the internal reality of the game.
: Audience stance -- the player's primary interest is in viewing the game
: as an outsider looking in. This stance is the stance
: from which things like dramatic irony or historical
: accuracy are judged.
Audience Stance
The position from which the player observes, enjoys, and evaluates
the game or aspects of it as himself, rather than as his character. This
is also a meta-game stance, as it refers to the *player's* viewing and
interpretation of the game, which may be very different from the character's.
This stance is the stance from which things like dramatic irony or historical
accuracy are judged [I liked that part a lot, Neel]. It is also the stance
adopted whenever the player witnesses an in-game event of which his character
is utterly unaware.
: Author stance -- the player's primary interest is in creating an interesting
: set of characters and game situations. The player decides
: what goes into the character -- ``Things will be more
: interesting if Jon is a member of the hated N'zee tribe'' --
: from the outside.
Author Stance
The position from which the player evaluates the game with an eye
towards changing it or affecting its development. 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. "What system
shall we use?," "What is the reason for all these characters to travel
together?," and "What in-character reason can we come up with for Bob's
character to leave the game, now that Bob is moving to Alaska?" are all
questions which can only be answered through the adoption of the Authorial
stance.
Like the previous three stances, the Author Stance exists outside
of the in-game reality. It is an external position from which the game
is viewed for the purpose of making decisions about its progress and its
play.
: In-Character -- the player's primary interest in trying to create a deep
: rapport with his character, and as far as it is possible,
: being the character and feeling his thoughts and emotions.
In-Character Stance
The view of the game from within the inside of the game world and
its reality, usually from within the mind of a character living within
that reality. This is the stance of the *character,* not the player, and
it encompasses only those things seen from the character's point of view.
It is the stance commonly associated with "play itself," as opposed to
the meta-game, and is the position which the player adopts in order to
play his character believably and satisfyingly.
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. The player who omits description
of his character's trip to the bathroom, to use a well-worn example, must
by necessity have adopted the stance of Author momentarily in order to
make this decision. The decision having been made, he is then likely to
jump back into the IC Stance. In many cases, these jumps in perspective
are made so instinctively and rapidly that they go unnoticed on any
conscious level. In other cases, the jumps from one stance to another may
be quite obvious, as when players are forced to spend a long period of
time in the Audience stance when they would far rather be spending more
time viewing the game from the IC position.
Certain gaming techniques may serve to emphasize one stance over
the others. One example of this is the technique of "cut-away scenes,"
which forces the players to adopt the Audience Stance. Another is the
use of private scenes and "cones of silence," which by restricting player
knowledge of information not known to their characters, attempts to reduce
the degree to which the players adopt the Audience Stance and to keep them
more firmly rooted in the IC Stance. Nonetheless, these four stances are
integral to the medium of table-top RPG, and while certain types of games
may privilege some stances over others, it is the interaction between the
four that largely defines RPG as a medium distinct from any other.
: Neel
Does that help to clarify matters any? My main objection to your
definitions is the description of them as "player preferences." Although
players may indeed have preferences involving how often, to what extent,
and in what situations they like to adopt the various stances, this is not
what the typology is intended to describe. The point is that the game
requires the frequent and constant adoption of all four stances; they are
integral to the medium itself. From your description, they come across as
play styles, and that is not at all what they are an attempt to delineate.
-- Sarah
--
Scott. A. H. Ruggels
enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) wrote:
> Just a few more comments on the "simulationist stances." I'm
>sorry to be picking on an article which was, after all, written some time
>ago, but there's some stuff in here which does seem to confirm my initial
>uneasiness with the association of the narrative stances with dramatism in
>games.
Funny. I, feeling a little sensitive and persecuted, because of my
simulationism, was feeling that the 4 narrative stances were not adressing
any of my Points of View. I thought these would allow one to discuss gaming
aspects without imposing a cinematic, or literary frame of reference.
>
>John H Kim (jh...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu), some time ago, wrote:
>
>: ---------------------------(Cut Here)----------------------------------
>
>: OK, in a recent post I had commented that the terms we were
>: often using were heavily biased to the dramatic way of viewing games --
>
> Again, I don't agree that they are. Except insofar as the
>terminology itself might produce a visceral reaction from those who have
>been burned by cinematic games that consciously used drama/film
>terminology as a part of the game. Alas, I can't think of any way to get
>around this, as I can't off-hand think of any substitute terminology more
>clear than the ones we've been using.
>
>: Well, in parallel to the dramatic stances, I might offer some
>: possibilities for simulationist "stances".
>
> Gee, John. Why did I get the impression that the narrative
>stances were being confused with the issue of dramatism here? ;)
> Seriously, though, I don't really think that "dramatic stances"
>makes much sense as a term describing the narrative stances.
Huh?
>Kevin and I
>were using a definition of "narrative" which has little to do with drama.
>Real Life, for example, is perceived by human beings as narrative, no
>matter how undramatic or unstructured it might be.
After the fact. Some of us bristle at even the hint of a pre planned
structure. :-)
>Perhaps this
>terminology is problematic in this sort of forum, as it is hardly the
>everyday usage of the word.
>
>: The key thing for understanding
>: the simulationist Point-of-View is to consider the gameworld as an
>: alternate reality rather than a shared story.
>
> Agreed. When you view this alternate reality from the outside,
>however (as you do when you are involved in the process of world
>creation), you are adopting a different stance than you do while playing a
>character *within* the world. RPG requires the ability to do both, and
>often the ability to flip back and forth between the two very quickly.
>Story, or the lack thereof, has nothing to do with this.
Yes it does. There is a philosophy that one will make the world and take the
results of that creation for better or for worse, and only retcon. or
intervene if it looks like it might crash the campaign. It is thinking of
making the background and interesting environment, rather than an interesting
stage.
>
>: While the dramatic
>: stances are about participation in the plot around the protagonists...
>
> No, they aren't. They are about how the game world and all that
>occurs in it is viewed. This has nothing to do with plot, or with the
>concept of the PCs as "protagonists." Only the IC stance and the Actor
>are necessarily about the PCs at all. The Author stance is the one from
>which all world-building takes place, for example, and world-building
>usually takes place long before the PCs have even been conceived. The
>Audience stance doesn't require there to be PCs either. When I read
>someone's world write-ups, I am appreciating and evaluating their efforts
>from the Audience stance.
Okay, but in my experience, then the only valid author, is the GM who made up
the background in the first place. (Not being a Troupe style player, I proceed
under a fairly rigid delineation of responsibility between the players and the
GM). The Author stance is limited other than the character's back story, and
its integration into the campaign history.
>
>: ...these stances are about the gameworld.
>
> Well...yes and no. These are still meta-game issues. They are
>"about the gameworld" only insofar as they define what the players want to
>get *out* of the gameworld, but they do not themselves exist inside the
>internal reality of the gameworld. They exist outside of it, in the
>realms of the meta-game.
You are correct.
>
>: One might picture them as
>: invisible Points-of-View (POV's) looking over the character's shoulder...
>
> You mean like the players? (Or am I the only one who often
>imagines the players as creepy invisible voyeurs hovering about the PCs
>and spying on them?)
You too huh? Players as ghosts in the game world. Hmmm...
>
> Looking over these stances, it seems to me that there is more than
>a little confusion over whether they are describing player types or
>character types. Allow me to illustrate...
>
>: -> "Scholar" is the stance interested in how things work in the
>: gameworld. This could be the stickler in a hard sci-fi game who
>: always wants to know how some gadget works -- or the analyzing
>: mage in a fantasy game in search of the ultimate answers...
>
> Okay. So is the "Scholar" here being used to refer to a player
>type or a character type? Is that "stickler" in the SF game demanding to
>know how the gadget works the character or the player? In this case, it
>sounds like you're talking about character types. But then we get:
Scholar refers to a character that spends his time researching the what the
player understands as the campain's magic rules.Tthis is a little bluury.
>
>: -> "Tourist" is the stance interested in the details of the world for
>: themselves.
>
> That's a player type, yes?
Yes as well as a character type. The character has a wanderlust, while the
player is content to be a virtual tourist within the GM's immaginary realm.
>
>: -> "Engineer" is a more interactive stance, interested creating things
>: as part of the game-world. For example, you might like to have your
>: character found an organization, or overthrow a political figure --
>: just to leave your mark on the world.
>
> And this is a player type, as the "you" here is referring to the
>player -- because the player is an "Engineer," he likes to play characters
>who leave their mark on the game world.
No I still think it is more of a character, but one where the player's
interests co-incide with the character's.
>
> Do you see why I say that this is still meta-game stuff? Nothing
>wrong with that, of course, but it's not really "about the game world" in
>the sense that you seemed to be implying.
I guess it is an alignment of character's and player's interests.
>
> : -*-*-*-
>
>: Now, of course it is easy to draw parallels -- one might say
>: that "Engineer" is the equivalent of "Author", for example. I don't
>: think that this is so, however.
>
> No, I agree. Completely different things.
>
>: Whereas an author looks
>: at the Plot as the product to which he is contributing, the engineer
>: looks at the World as the product to which he is contributing -- and
>: there is a distinction, in my mind.
Okay, author works on making the world before play, and the engineer wants to
modify an existing world only through in character actions during play.
Clear?
>
> Here, however, is where I feel that the narrative stance model has
>been grossly misunderstood. The Author stance is the one from which
>world-creation happens. The Author stance is the place from which one
>views the game world as an external phenomenon with an eye to contributing
>to and changing it from *outside* (as opposed to wishing to change the
>world from the inside, from the IC position)
An engineer(?).
>What on earth does plot
>have to do with this?
> I'm a bit confused, John. In your other article, you insisted
>quite strenuously that you were not making connections between narrative
>stance and plot issues, but here you seem to be doing just that. Is the
>problem here that this is a re-post, and that after posting this however
>many months ago, these misunderstandings were cleared up, perhaps? If
>this is the case, then I apologize for starting the whole process over
>again, but I really am finding it hard to allow these misuses of the model
>pass by uncontested.
Misuse of models.. where is David :-)
>
>: Let me take an example. In a dramatic detective game, a PC
>: gets into an easy fight as he beats up on a suspect. Another character
>: tosses him a gun to threaten the guy with. As Author, the player thinks
>: that it would be a neat plot twist if his character fumbles the catch,
>: and the gun land where the suspect could grab it.
>
> Yes. In a dramatic game, this would be a decision made from the
>Author. (In a simulationist game, a player might well still think that
>"it would be neat" if the character fumbled, but he wouldn't perceive it
>as a "plot twist," and he wouldn't violate realism in order to make it
>happen.
Yes, exactly, though an asshole GM might make the the throwing character, and
catching caracter make die rolls.
>The thought would probably, however, come more from the Audience
>than from the Author, because the event in question is not one which the
>player has the right or the power to determine.)
> This is hardly the only sort of thing that happens from the stance
>of Author, though. Character creation happens from the stance of Author.
Well it depends on if the player is a DAS or a DIP generator.
>So does world-building. So does a huge amount of GM decision-making, even
>in the most stringently simulationist game.
Maybe...
>
>: This isn't really covered from the simulationist stances. The
>: scholar might be concerned that actual throw and catching be handled
>: reasonably -- but none of the stances are concerned with controlling
>: how the outcome comes about.
>
> No. They are, however, concerned with which types of action are
>focused on within the game. The Engineer will get annoyed if he is unable
>to affect change on the game world. The Tourist will get annoyed if the
>game world isn't sufficiently detailed and described. The Plumber will be
>bored if attention in the game is too strongly focused on action
>irrelevant to his character's inner psyche. And so on.
> In this way, it seems to me that the "simulationist stances"
>actually have *more* to do with drama than the narrative stances, because
>they determine the player's preferences for which types of activities they
>want the game to focus on -- ie, the "dramatic focus" of the game. I am
>finding the term "simulationist stances" very inappropriate for these
>distinctions.
Boy.. you are causing trouble.:-) No I reject that assertion, because it does
not concern itself with the overarching story of the camaign. Individual
preference as opposed to the group concerns.
>
>: -*-*-*-
>
>: In turn, the "scholar" and "tourist" stances are passive like
>: the "Audience". However, the audience concern themselves first with
>: the actions of the PC's...
>
> No. That's not what "the narrative stance of Audience" means at
>ALL. The narrative stance of the Audience is the position from which the
>game world is viewed as an external phenomenon which can *not* be changed
>by the viewer. When playing in an extremely detailed game world in which
>the players are not permitted to change in-game details, the Audience is
>the position from which the players read the GM's source material and
>familiarize themselves with the world. Again, the PCs are likely not to
>even *exist* yet when this happens.
Urrrr....
>
>: ...-- whereas the scholar and the tourist could
>: care less about any of the central characters. They are interested
>: in non-character-related things, and thus time spent in those stances
>: means less emotional attachment to the PC's as protagonists.
>
> But probably a greater emotional attachment to the game world
>itself (she adds, from personal experience). Ever have an entire game
>world destroyed? I think I reacted to that the way some people react to
>character death. I still get all teary-eyed just *thinking* about it.
Gee... Sorry.. But I don't get very upset over dead characters. I suppose I
would get upset aover my trashed campaign background, but anoothers? I don't
think so.
>
> At any rate, I would like to state once more that I really like
>the development of these stances. I think that they go a long way towards
>acting as a shorthand for certain types of player preferences and
>priorities that have an enormous effect on the games themselves. My main
>problem with them is the term "simulationist stances," which seems to me
>both inaccurate and misleading. These are meta-game preferences which
>will surface in either a simulationist or a dramatic game, and which will
>have a tremendous effect on the extent to which the game is satisfying to
>its participants. In fact, I think that they have a greater influence in
>a dramatic game, as dramatic games tend to enforce game focus (for the
>purposes of dramatic structure and so forth) far more stringently than
>simulationist games, and it is therefore in dramatic games that the
>players are more likely to get ruffled by having their meta-game
>preferences ignored or opposed (such has been my experience with dramatic
>games in the past, at any rate).
>
> -- Sarah
Okay, then what are the stances from your P.O.V.?
Scott
Scott Taylor
rave...@southwind.net (Carl D. Cravens) wrote:
>On 16 May 1996 21:14:21 GMT, enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) wrote:
>> ("No, I'm *not* going to stand up just because you're standing
>>and my character is supposed to be next to you. Use your imagination.
>>That's what it's there for." "Stop waving that invisible sword at me,
>>dammit. I'm *not* going to wave an invisible sword back at you. I
>>know nothing about swordplay, and my tactics are not going to bear any
>>resemblance to my character's. Besides, you're making me nervous. Go
>>sit back down and get *away* from me!")
:-)
>At my first and only (so far) venture to GenCon, I had a GM ask me to
>stand at his end of the table to better "act out" my encounter with a
>crazy guy I had found. (I was point man for our recon team.) This
>wasn't too bad... I stood there, he curled up on the floor and started
>singing and did a good job of portraying the character. But when I
>spoke to him, he jumped up, grabbed my wrist with enough strength that
>I couldn't break free without real effort, and got right in my face..
>*that* was probably the most uncomfortable "roleplaying" experience
>I've ever been in. I was about to panic, being in an uncomfortable
>social situation I had no experience handling, with an initial gut
>feeling to respond to violence with violence and I was afraid that I
>was going to hurt this guy trying to get out of the situation.
Been there, done that. At one point a rather overzealous player who
wouldn't get out of my face [and was pushing *way* too many buttons]
got told (sotto voce) "if you don't back off *right now*, I'm going to
physically hurt and embarass you in front of all these people. I
understand that you think you are roleplaying, but to me you are being
threatening" , or words more or less to that effect. (it didn't help
that at the time I was only getting about 4 hours of sleep a night,
working close to 60, and practicing three different martial arts
(fencing, Tae Kwon Do and Aikido), plus 20credit hours as a Criminal
Justice student; I was *living* on caffeine and sugar).
I am, of course, feeling *muuuucchh better noww*...
>(Has anyone had the shocking experience of entering a Hero Aux. Corp
>game, such as Drive-in Hero or Starship X-11, to find that it was
>completely different from what you expected? Having signed up about
>half my games in HAC slots, I found myself with a lot of free time at
>GenCon after Starship X-11 about ruined my first night there. Being
>told this was "as close to live action as we can get without being
>thrown out" and "my goal is to seriously embarrass you before the game
>is over" should have given me the clue to walk out right then and there.)
Bleahhh. Not my cup of tea at all. Thanks for the warning; this is not
at all something I would be interested in even thinking about
experiencing (I'm quite skilled at embarassing myself, thankouverymuch,
as anyone who's read my posts can attest to :-$ )
Scott Taylor
Carl D. Cravens
On 16 May 1996 21:14:21 GMT, enn...@teleport.com (Ennead) wrote:
> ("No, I'm *not* going to stand up just because you're standing
>and my character is supposed to be next to you. Use your imagination.
>That's what it's there for." "Stop waving that invisible sword at me,
>dammit. I'm *not* going to wave an invisible sword back at you. I know
>nothing about swordplay, and my tactics are not going to bear any resemblance
>to my character's. Besides, you're making me nervous. Go sit back down and
>get *away* from me!")
At my first and only (so far) venture to GenCon, I had a GM ask me to
stand at his end of the table to better "act out" my encounter with a
crazy guy I had found. (I was point man for our recon team.) This
wasn't too bad... I stood there, he curled up on the floor and started
singing and did a good job of portraying the character. But when I
spoke to him, he jumped up, grabbed my wrist with enough strength that I
couldn't break free without real effort, and got right in my face...
*that* was probably the most uncomfortable "roleplaying" experience I've
ever been in. I was about to panic, being in an uncomfortable social
situation I had no experience handling, with an initial gut feeling to
respond to violence with violence and I was afraid that I was going to
hurt this guy trying to get out of the situation.
I've got a player that likes to sit next to the player of the character
she's talking to (the character is fairly active and can't sit still
herself) so she bounces around a lot and tends to act out her encounter
with a new person. (She's a cat-person... she's gotta sniff
*everybody*.) I can deal with this kind of stuff, even though I don't
really do it myself. But violent physical contact... even if it wasn't
harmful, was very different. I think part of my problem was I hated the
experience, but I couldn't "break character" and blow the scene... I
didn't contribute much because I was kind of in shock, but because of
perceived peer pressure to go along with the game and not "ruin things"
I couldn't just break his grip and quit.
During a later game with this GM, when I just dropped by looking for a
friend, I walked up to find one player sprawled on the floor (the table
having been folded up and leaned against the wall) with the players
gathered around him. Seems he was murdered and they were all acting it
out. I kinda like theater or live-action gaming, but it's a different
animal from "table top" roleplaying and I get peeved when a GM starts
mixing heavy live-action elements into a traditional game.
(Has anyone had the shocking experience of entering a Hero Aux. Corp
game, such as Drive-in Hero or Starship X-11, to find that it was
completely different from what you expected? Having signed up about
half my games in HAC slots, I found myself with a lot of free time at
GenCon after Starship X-11 about ruined my first night there. Being
told this was "as close to live action as we can get without being
thrown out" and "my goal is to seriously embarrass you before the game is
over" should have given me the clue to walk out right then and there.)
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net)
* I don't have TIME to be charming...