Proposal to retire the term "IC" in favor of "Immersion"
Kevin
Warren (I think--forgive me if I err) has noted that the label "IC
stance" in the
four stance model is confusing, and I agree with him. It carrys quite a
varied
freight of connotations.
When I coined the term originally, I intended it to convey something
akin to the
stance of the method actor--that is, the attempt to "view" the fictive
world
"naturally" as your character would view it, to react to the fictive
world as your
character without first having to "think it through."
The "actor stance" in my original conception was also somewhat muddled,
since
it referred to two separate things--the PORTRAYAL of character, first
and foremost, but also the stance of the actor who has to
intellectualize his reaction to the fictive setting before portraying
it. It seems to me that all three of these stances are analytically
distinct, as brought out in recent conversations, and that we would be
well advised to formalize the distinctions in our terminology.
I would suggest the following:
"Immersive stance" refers to the method actor stance--the original IC
stance, which some people have been calling the "deep IC stance."
"Actor stance" refers to portrayal of character.
"IC stance" now refers to the person who has to think through their
character before acting it--for whom their is a distinct step between
reacting to the setting and acting in character, which is mediated by
their attempt to think out how their character OUGHT to act or react.
We probably should find a better term for this, since there will be some
confusion if we narrow the original term in this fashion. I confess I'm
at a loss here, but I have confidence that people will have good
suggestions :)
I'd like to see the outcome of this discussion be an agreed upon set of
terms to define these states a bit better, which can then be used as the
basis for amending John's FAQ. As the original author, I do feel some
ownership of the model, although of course it has percolated out far
beyond that :) At any rate, I would like to take some responsibility
for incorporating the very useful insights that have emerged from recent
discussion, esp. by Mary and Rodney, into the existing model.
Thanks in advance.
Best,
Kevin
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
I would suggest the following:
"Immersive stance" refers to the method actor stance--the
original IC stance, which some people have been calling
the "deep IC stance."
Strongly agree.
"Actor stance" refers to portrayal of character.
I confess I don't completely understand the nuances of how this differs
from the previously intended use of this term. I mean, we had a couple
hundred posts on immersion from dozens of people, under the title 'deep
IC', and I feel like that was necessary to really clarify what was going
on. I don't know of a similar discussion on actor stance, and I'm not
sure we know enough about it to adjust the terminology.
"IC stance" now refers to the person who has to think
through their character before acting it--for whom their
is a distinct step between reacting to the setting and
acting in character, which is mediated by their attempt
to think out how their character OUGHT to act or react.
We probably should find a better term for this, since
there will be some confusion if we narrow the original
term in this fashion. I confess I'm at a loss here, but
I have confidence that people will have good
suggestions :)
I think that any use of the term 'IC' in these stances is bound to lead to
terminology problems. For example, the above could result in phrases
like, 'playing immersively rather than in IC stance', which would be
interpreted by those not completely familiar with r.g.f.a terminology as
"immersive play is not in character" - which might seem to them a pretty
ridiculous statement.
To me, having to think through actions before portraying them is author
mode - not deep enough to be channeling, but author nonetheless. So it's
already covered under the existing four stances.
Warren Dew
scott....@3do.com
In article <3349CA...@washingtonian.infi.net>,
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net wrote:
>
> Warren (I think--forgive me if I err) has noted that the label "IC
> stance" in the
> four stance model is confusing, and I agree with him. It carrys quite a
> varied
> freight of connotations.
>
>
> I'd like to see the outcome of this discussion be an agreed upon set of
> terms to define these states a bit better, which can then be used as the
> basis for amending John's FAQ. As the original author, I do feel some
> ownership of the model, although of course it has percolated out far
> beyond that :) At any rate, I would like to take some responsibility
> for incorporating the very useful insights that have emerged from recent
> discussion, esp. by Mary and Rodney, into the existing model.
>
I think that this has been the goal al along :-)
Scott
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
John H Kim
As writer of what FAQ we have, I'd like to comment on this.
First of all, I'm all in favor of using "immersion" rather than
"In-Character" and "Deep IC" to denote a sort of method actor
approach where you try to think as your character. However, I have
some reservations about Kevin's other suggestions...
Psychohist <psych...@aol.com> wrote:
>Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
>: "Actor stance" refers to portrayal of character.
>
>I confess I don't completely understand the nuances of how this differs
>from the previously intended use of this term.
Well, what's more, I don't think this is clear at all.
I would be in favor of tossing out "actor" as a term. It is
especially confusing since we liken "immersion" to method acting.
I would favor a term like "portrayal stance" as being
at least less loaded.
-*-*-*-
>
>: "IC stance" now refers to the person who has to think through their
>: character before acting it--for whom their is a distinct step
>: between reacting to the setting and acting in character, which
>: is mediated by their attempt to think out how their character
>: OUGHT to act or react. We probably should find a better term
>: for this, [...]
Damn straight!! How about "analytic stance"? It's ugly,
but I think it is bound to be better than "IC" -- which is going
to confuse *both* newcomers (to whom it doesn't mean quite what it
says) as well as existing readers (to whom it is very different from
what "IC" used to mean around here).
>
>To me, having to think through actions before portraying them is author
>mode - not deep enough to be channeling, but author nonetheless. So
>it's already covered under the existing four stances.
Hmmm. This rather cuts to the heart of the issue. Basically,
the stances as they were originally envisioned break up what players
do according to the functions in a play or movie.
But it seems that we are trying to subdivide differently than
was originally conceived. I'll have to think more about this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_
Jaana Heino
Kevin <krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net> writes:
|I would suggest the following:
|"Immersive stance" refers to the method actor stance--the original IC
|stance, which some people have been calling the "deep IC stance."
|"IC stance" now refers to the person who has to think through their
|character before acting it...
"Immersive" is fine with me, but I *strongly* disagree using "IC" for
'having to think through', simply because that *definitely* is not how
people outside this newsgroup (or inside it, so far) tend to use it. One
definitely is IC when being immersive, isn't one?
I suggest that "IC" from this on refers to doing something 'as the
character', and that it is not at all used as one of the stances. So
the Four Stances would be Actor, Author, Audience and Immersive, and you
could be IC and do things IC in all of them. In Actor, you would talk
and behave IC, and in Immersive you might also feel and think IC...
--
Jaana Heino-----------------email: jant...@cc.helsinki.fi----
Iivisniemenkuja 4 F 70----------------------------------------
02260 Espoo------------------"Trust is the taste of death."---
FINLAND-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin
My original post provoked quite a few thoughtful replies. Rather than
respond to each, I'm going to use Jaana's response as a spring-board
from which to reply to all. Apologies in advance for taking such a lazy
way out :)
Jaana Heino wrote:
Kevin <krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net> writes:
|"Immersive stance" refers to the method actor stance--the original
IC
|stance, which some people have been calling the "deep IC stance."
There seems to be universal agreement on this one. John--is it OK with
you if
we consider this part of my proposal accepted?
|"IC stance" now refers to the person who has to think through their
|character before acting it...
"Immersive" is fine with me, but I *strongly* disagree using "IC"
for
'having to think through', simply because that *definitely* is not
how
people outside this newsgroup (or inside it, so far) tend to use it.
One
definitely is IC when being immersive, isn't one?
Well, I *did* indicate that I was not comfortable with the term either,
and was only using it in lieu of something better.
I suggest that "IC" from this on refers to doing something 'as the
character', and that it is not at all used as one of the stances. So
the Four Stances would be Actor, Author, Audience and Immersive, and
you
could be IC and do things IC in all of them. In Actor, you would
talk
and behave IC, and in Immersive you might also feel and think IC...
A number of people indicated that they perceived the (tentatively
labelled) "IC" stance above (to which Jaana rightly objects) as being
quite similar to the author stance. I'm not at all sure I agree,
although I'm not sure I disagree either. More below on this--hopefully
subsequent conversation will clarify the issue :)
Did anyone save the original article? If so, can you repost it?
Elsewise I can upload a text copy to rgfa . . .
John remarked, correctly, that the original analysis was predicated upon
the metaphor "rpg is like narrative," and sought to apply a
sub-metaphor, "rpg is like theatre" to understanding how one can go
about making sense of an rpg.
There is, it seems to me, something authorial going on when you stop to
ask yourself "what would my character do in this situation?" or "how
would my character react?" That is, in the context of the original
metaphor, the player of a character is approaching the game analagously
to the way a playwright approaches writing and conceptualizing a
character. So it does make some sense to me to call this "authorial"
and part of the "author" stance. If we accept this way of looking at
things, then the actor stance is narrowed purely to issues of
portrayal. It assumes knowledge of what is to be portrayed, however
that knowledge is generated (be it from method-immersion or from
authorial contemplation).
I think we lose something if we orient the labels too far away from the
original metaphor. The claim was never that "rpg IS theatre," but
rather that "IF rpg is LIKE theatre," then this is how one can go about
conceptualizing it. If we remove that "IF," it seems to me, we risk
losing sight of the provisional nature of the analysis. For, after all,
rpg is NOT theatre, and the narrative, theatrical metaphor, while
powerful, can only take us so far.
So I would oppose adopting language like "portrayal stance" and
"analytic stance," since these leave out the theatrical connotations.
Indeed, I worry somewhat, on second thought, of to what extent
"immersive stance" also deflects attention from the original context of
the analysis. I would propose, perhaps, the following, somewhat more
obscure schema:
METHOD stance (which explicitly references the method actor)
AUTHOR stance
AUDIENCE stance
ACTOR stance (now explicitly narrowed down to issues of portrayal)
These terms have the advantage, it seems to me, of preserving the
original references and connotations of the analysis. They highlight,
it seems to me, the dependence of the analysis on the comparison of rpg
to theatre--and hence the somewhat ambiguous and derivative nature of
the stances themselves. I think this is a good thing to remember, when
we talk about the stances--there is a sense to which the stances are and
always will be imperfect, because the metaphor upon which they are
predicated is imperfect.
All my best,
Kevin
scott....@3do.com
In article <5iidk6$rv4$1...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>,
Jaana Heino <jant...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>
> "Immersive" is fine with me, but I *strongly* disagree using "IC" for
> 'having to think through', simply because that *definitely* is not how
> people outside this newsgroup (or inside it, so far) tend to use it. One
> definitely is IC when being immersive, isn't one?
>
> character', and that it is not at all used as one of the stances. So
> the Four Stances would be Actor, Author, Audience and Immersive, and you
> could be IC and do things IC in all of them. In Actor, you would talk
> and behave IC, and in Immersive you might also feel and think IC...
>
I would second this s well. This seems clearer. Remove IC from the
stances as that seems to be the root of the confusion.
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
...snip...
>
> There is, it seems to me, something authorial going on when you stop to
> ask yourself "what would my character do in this situation?" or "how
> would my character react?" That is, in the context of the original
> metaphor, the player of a character is approaching the game analagously
> to the way a playwright approaches writing and conceptualizing a
> character. So it does make some sense to me to call this "authorial"
> and part of the "author" stance. If we accept this way of looking at
> things, then the actor stance is narrowed purely to issues of
> portrayal. It assumes knowledge of what is to be portrayed, however
> that knowledge is generated (be it from method-immersion or from
> authorial contemplation).
>
The problem I see with that is that while there might be _something_
authorial going on when you ask yourselves those questions, they seem a
pretty far cry (and perhaps even opposite in intent) to asking yourself
"What could my character do that would make for a great dramatic moment,
or really help the plot or mood?", which is what I understood authorial
to mean. It seems to me that by doing that you narrow and clarify "IC"
at the expense of broadening "author" to a confusing amount.
Doug Smith
Kevin <krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net> wrote:
> Warren (I think--forgive me if I err) has noted that the label "IC
>stance" in the
>four stance model is confusing, and I agree with him. It carrys quite a
>varied
>freight of connotations.
>When I coined the term originally, I intended it to convey something
>akin to the
>stance of the method actor--that is, the attempt to "view" the fictive
>world
>"naturally" as your character would view it, to react to the fictive
>world as your
>character without first having to "think it through."
>The "actor stance" in my original conception was also somewhat muddled,
>since
>it referred to two separate things--the PORTRAYAL of character, first
>and foremost, but also the stance of the actor who has to
>intellectualize his reaction to the fictive setting before portraying
>it. It seems to me that all three of these stances are analytically
>distinct, as brought out in recent conversations, and that we would be
>well advised to formalize the distinctions in our terminology.
>I would suggest the following:
>"Immersive stance" refers to the method actor stance--the original IC
>stance, which some people have been calling the "deep IC stance."
>"Actor stance" refers to portrayal of character.
>"IC stance" now refers to the person who has to think through their
>character before acting it--for whom their is a distinct step between
>reacting to the setting and acting in character, which is mediated by
>their attempt to think out how their character OUGHT to act or react.
>We probably should find a better term for this, since there will be some
>confusion if we narrow the original term in this fashion. I confess I'm
>at a loss here, but I have confidence that people will have good
>suggestions :)
>I'd like to see the outcome of this discussion be an agreed upon set of
>terms to define these states a bit better, which can then be used as the
>basis for amending John's FAQ. As the original author, I do feel some
>ownership of the model, although of course it has percolated out far
>beyond that :) At any rate, I would like to take some responsibility
>for incorporating the very useful insights that have emerged from recent
>discussion, esp. by Mary and Rodney, into the existing model.
>Thanks in advance.
I'm new to this NG so forgive me if my questions are seem simple.
What's wrong with using descriptive terms 'Method Acting", "Acting"
(or Regular Acting), and "3rd Person Acting" for someone who's more
detached from their character?
>Best,
>Kevin
DES
Yuri: "Whoops. So much for a live arrest."
Mark Grundy
| I would suggest the following:
|
| "Immersive stance" refers to the method actor stance--the
| original IC stance, which some people have been calling
| the "deep IC stance."
|
|Strongly agree.
|
| "Actor stance" refers to portrayal of character.
Here's a Friday-afternoon, off-the-wall comment:
Why the term `stance'?
It makes me think of Feng Shui martial arts -- Tiger Stance, Fire Stance,
Crane Stance...
It makes me think of golfers and boxers and weight-lifters shaping
up to their targets and grunting away.
It doesn't make me think of roleplaying at all, because we hardly ever
``stand'' anywhere. Usually we're on our butts and when we grunt
it's only because the cheese has come off our pizza wedge or the cat
has knocked over the cola bottle, or the dice just rolled into our shoe.
So why not ``immersive *seat*''? Okay, maybe not... Too equestrian.
Well anyway we need something less sporty and aggressive than ``stance''.
``Mode''? ``Orientation''? Or how about ``Perspective'' or ``View''?
Or borrow Edward De Bono's notion of ``Hat''? Or how about ``posture'' or
``pose''?
Actor pose... So lost in my character that I don't realise how silly I
look pose... Just here for the pretzels pose... Too much caffeine pose...
I *like* it.
Mark
---
Dr Mark Grundy, DCS, Phone: +61-6-249 3785
Education Co-ordinator, Fax: +61-6-249 0010
CRC for Advanced Computational Systems,
The Australian National University, Web: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~Mark.Grundy
0200 Australia Email: Mark....@anu.edu.au
Psychohist
I'm not yet convinced that 'actor' stance is limited solely to issues of
portrayal, even if conscious determination of what the character does is
considered to be 'author'.
Consider the case of someone who ad-libs a humorous line, without thinking
about it - just to make a spur of the moment joke. But assume that it's
at the character level - say, the humor of the statement can only be
understood in the context of the character's world, not of the player's
world.
Assume the line is not particularly consistent with the character's
personality, so it doesn't come from immersive play. It isn't consciously
crafted, and it isn't particularly an attempt to manipulate the 'story' as
a whole, if in fact there is one, so it isn't really authorial. It's just
a throwaway line, the kind that actors used to be allowed to add on their
own in movies, back before actors were selected purely on the basis of
physique and looks.
I'd argue that the player is in actor mode here. In fact, I could argue
that this kind of thing characterizes actor mode better than 'portrayal' -
to the extent that there's a motivation for the throwaway gag line, it's
to entertain the rest of the participants, the traditional purpose of
actors.
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
These terms have the advantage, it seems to me, of
preserving the original references and connotations
of the analysis.
I don't think this is an advantage. Immersive play has been discussed
sufficiently - under the 'deep IC' thread - that everyone now understands
quite a bit about what it means. That understanding is independent of any
theatrical metaphor - indeed, many of the advocates of immersive play have
mentioned that they prefer little or no story orientation, and like a
strong dose of simulation.
Limiting the terms to a specialized metaphor seems to me to limit their
utility.
Warren
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
> Joshua Macy wrote:
>
> The problem I see with that is that while there might be
> _something_ authorial going on when you ask yourselves those questions, they
> seem a pretty far cry (and perhaps even opposite in intent) to asking
> yourself "What could my character do that would make for a great dramatic
> moment, or really help the plot or mood?", which is what I understood
> authorial to mean.
>
> This was never my own or Sarah's understanding of what it meant to
> engage in an rpg from the stance of an author.
>
> The connections to drama, mood, or play may very well be present, but
> the original analysis did not draw the connections and did not intend to
> imply them--they are not constituent of the definition of the author
> stance, at least as we originally conceived it..
>
> A player may be said to working from the author stance whenever he or
> she thinks analagously to the author of a stage- or screen-play or
> novel. That often carries the connotations you suggest above, but not
> necessarily. I think its a mistake to insist on those connotations as
> being definitive.
They may not be definitive, but it doesn't seem sensible to exclude
them, and if you don't then your proposed authorial stance seems (to me,
anyway) to encompass antithetical ways of playing. I often ask myself,
"what would my character do?", but I never ask (and likely would resent
being asked to consider) what my character could do that would further
any overarching consideration that an author of a play might have (such
as drama, mood, pacing, suspense, or what-have-you). In fact, I can't
think of any consideration that an author might have *other* than
keeping a particular character in character that I would be comfortable
using for my own characters as a player, but I can't really imagine many
authors writing a play with that as their only (or even primary)
consideration.
Kevin
Joshua Macy wrote:
The problem I see with that is that while there might be
_something_
authorial going on when you ask yourselves those questions, they
seem a
pretty far cry (and perhaps even opposite in intent) to asking
yourself
"What could my character do that would make for a great dramatic
moment,
or really help the plot or mood?", which is what I understood
authorial
to mean.
This was never my own or Sarah's understanding of what it meant to
engage in an rpg from the stance of an author.
The connections to drama, mood, or play may very well be present, but
the original analysis did not draw the connections and did not intend to
imply them--they are not constituent of the definition of the author
stance, at least as we originally conceived it..
A player may be said to working from the author stance whenever he or
she thinks analagously to the author of a stage- or screen-play or
novel. That often carries the connotations you suggest above, but not
necessarily. I think its a mistake to insist on those connotations as
being definitive.
My best,
Kevin
Kevin
This is in reply to Warren, regarding why I think that the original
context of analysis is important.
Psychohist wrote:
I don't think this is an advantage. Immersive play has been
discussed
sufficiently - under the 'deep IC' thread - that everyone now
understands
quite a bit about what it means. That understanding is independent
of any
theatrical metaphor - indeed, many of the advocates of immersive
play have
mentioned that they prefer little or no story orientation, and like
a
strong dose of simulation.
Ah--but I would argue that simulation is its own metaphor. That is, we
understand what role-play is and how one can participate in it by
comparing the activity to something else, in this case simulationist
models of various sorts. By highlighting the metaphorical status of the
label, it seems to me, we open up the possibility for the same sort of
analysis as I orignially performed for the metaphor "RPG is like
theatre." The analysis, however, will necessarily be different.
As a start towards this, how would you define "simulationist?" Just
what are you trying to "simulate?" (Please do not assume a hostile
agenda when I frame the question this way :)
If you were to fill in the following sentence "simulationist rpg is like
X," what would "X" be?
Limiting the terms to a specialized metaphor seems to me to limit
their
utility.
I quite agree--but I think this is a virtue, not a flaw. I do not think
we have an adequate analysis of simulationist role-play as yet, and so I
don't think we are yet in position to compare the two metaphors.
Ultimately I think we will conclude
a. There are various legitimate metaphors for describing rpg; and
b. Each of them captures the activity imperfectly; because
c. There are lots of different kinds of activity subsumed by the label
"rpg."
But that is just a guess, of course--we won't know until we pursue the
question :)
I want to maintain that provisional, ambiguous sense of imperfection. I
do not think there is a holy-grail out there, that any one analysis will
provide the perfect insight into how rpg works. The activity, it seems
to me, is not so unitary such that we can dissect in quite such a
rigorous fashion.
My best,
Kevin
Scott DiBerardino
Psychohist (psych...@aol.com) wrote:
: I'm not yet convinced that 'actor' stance is limited solely to issues of
: portrayal, even if conscious determination of what the character does is
: considered to be 'author'.
There does seem to be a need to use more than one stance at once or
consecutively. If there is something to be portrayed, which is determined
by putting on the Author cap, then one must assume the Actor stance to do
so. I guess I am confused by what "portrayal issues" are. Since in
roleplaying the roles are generally solely defined by the player, there is
no script or role set by a separate author or the GM that one simply acts
out. Strict adherence to the character set down in the character sheet
seems like the only pure incidence of acting.
Emme
-scott \\ sco...@javanet.com \\ www.javanet.com/~scottd/banana.html
"Quantitative action works by violence and breeds reaction.
Qualitative action works by example and invites reciprocation."
-- Robert Fripp
Kevin
Joshua Macy wrote:
They may not be definitive, but it doesn't seem sensible to
exclude
them,
Please, Joshua--read what I wrote! I quite explicitly indicated that I
was *not* excluding them, in the original definition. Quite the
contrary, I most definitely would consider someone who made decisions in
a game one the basis of considerations of drama or plot to be acting in
the authorial stance. However, the converse of that is *not* true--the
author stance is not *limited* to considerations of plot or drama or
story. It includes such considerations, but it can include a great many
others as well.
We would seem to be talking past each other.
and if you don't then your proposed authorial stance seems (to me,
anyway) to encompass antithetical ways of playing.
I don't follow you here--how so?
I often ask myself,
"what would my character do?", but I never ask (and likely would
resent
being asked to consider) what my character could do that would
further
any overarching consideration that an author of a play might have
(such
as drama, mood, pacing, suspense, or what-have-you).
Not a problem--I'm not trying to attack how you play, in the slightest.
But, at least as I and Sarah originally proposed the definition, when
you ask yourself "what would my character do?" you *are* assuming the
authorial stance (although there are shades of the actor stance there
too, to be sure, at least as we originally defined the terms--which is,
I think, part of the larger problem here).
Any time you assume an orientation to the game that is analagous to the
orientation that an author has to a work in progress, you are assuming
the author stance.
In fact, I can't
think of any consideration that an author might have *other* than
keeping a particular character in character that I would be
comfortable
using for my own characters as a player,
I haven't got a problem with this--your preferences are your own, and
they seem legitimate enough to me. I have no quarrel with them, and
were you in one of my games, I'd strive to accomodate them.
but I can't really imagine many
authors writing a play with that as their only (or even primary)
consideration.
It does not have to be primary--simply *a* consideration. The way you
are construing the author stance is not the way Sarah and I did. If
"original intent" means anything (and it doesn't, necessarily) then you
are not using the term in its original sense. I did not intend to
restrict the author stance to "enhancing the drama of the game" or
"making a better plot" or even "making a better story." While I will
grant you that authors very often write with those things in mind, that
is by no means necessarily true all the time. Some authors write, for
example, to create the most realistic and believable character possible,
irregardless of considerations of plot or story or drama--would you then
want to say that they are not "real" authors when they write that way?
I wouldn't.
(For example, would you say that Bret Harte or Mark Twain, or any of the
other "local color" authors of the late 19th century, were not "true"
authors, when they neglected plot and story in order to convey the
"feel" of a particular place and time? Is the author of a non-fiction
travelogue not a "true" author?)
Since it seems unlikely to me that you really disagree with that, I
conclude that we are miscommunicating somewhere. Maybe you can restate
your understanding of the term?
Best,
Kevin
Jaana Heino
Kevin wrote:
>the analysis. I would propose, perhaps, the following, somewhat more
>obscure schema:
>METHOD stance (which explicitly references the method actor)
>AUTHOR stance
>AUDIENCE stance
>ACTOR stance (now explicitly narrowed down to issues of portrayal)
I would not really like this. One major part of the beauty of the
original four stances (imho, of course) was how it separated the three
ways I definitely feel in my own play. If you narrow what was called
'Actor' into just portrayal, you loose the distinction between what was
called 'IC' and 'Author'. The terms are not very good, maybe - there
seems to be some value judgements relating to 'IC' involved, too - but
the distinction is there, and I would like to keep it there.
(In case that I am unclear, I mean the distinction between "What would
she do?" and "Oh, whatever will I do?" This need not show outside, but
it is there.)
Mary K. Kuhner
In article <ScottD-1204...@noho-us224.javanet.com> ScottD@*remove*javanet.com (Scott DiBerardino) writes:
>I guess I am confused by what "portrayal issues" are. Since in
>roleplaying the roles are generally solely defined by the player, there is
>no script or role set by a separate author or the GM that one simply acts
>out. Strict adherence to the character set down in the character sheet
>seems like the only pure incidence of acting.
Players make small portrayal decisions all the time, mostly unconsciously.
Which statements do I say in character, and which do I summarize, and
which do I leave out? (No one says everything their character says,
down to "pass the salt", in every scene; takes too long.)
Which of my character's actions do I describe in detail, and which do I
summarize, and which do I leave out?
Do I describe the character's thoughts and feelings, or only his
words and deeds?
Do I try to work up an accent or mode of speech for my character? Do
I use invented words, or translate everything to English (i.e. when
speaking of game-world customs or foods)?
How do I describe my character's appearance? When? In what detail?
As I see it, these are Actor decisions, involving how the character is
portrayed to the other players and the GM.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
> Joshua Macy wrote:
>
> They may not be definitive, but it doesn't seem sensible to
> exclude
> them,
>
> Please, Joshua--read what I wrote!
Please, Kevin, finish reading the sentence before commenting. The
second clause contains an important modifier.
> I quite explicitly indicated that I
> was *not* excluding them, in the original definition. Quite the
> contrary, I most definitely would consider someone who made decisions in
> a game one the basis of considerations of drama or plot to be acting in
> the authorial stance. However, the converse of that is *not* true--the
> author stance is not *limited* to considerations of plot or drama or
> story. It includes such considerations, but it can include a great many
> others as well.
>
> We would seem to be talking past each other.
Apparently. I am aware that your use of the term "author stance"
includes a great many considerations--that's precisely my objection to
it: it includes *so many* considerations that I don't see it as being at
all useful in discussion. What, in your view, *isn't* subsumed under
author stance?
>
> and if you don't then your proposed authorial stance seems (to me,
> anyway) to encompass antithetical ways of playing.
>
> I don't follow you here--how so?
>
> I often ask myself,
> "what would my character do?", but I never ask (and likely would
> resent
> being asked to consider) what my character could do that would
> further
> any overarching consideration that an author of a play might have
> (such
> as drama, mood, pacing, suspense, or what-have-you).
>
> Not a problem--I'm not trying to attack how you play, in the slightest.
It's not a matter of attacking how I play--I'm not sensitive on that
score; it's a matter of how to describe how I play. You would describe
it as author stance, but you would also describe as author stance
methods of play that I don't do, and would be loathe to do. What, then,
does my telling you that I play using author stance (according to your
definition) tell you about the way that I play? Not much, as far as I
can see.
> But, at least as I and Sarah originally proposed the definition, when
> you ask yourself "what would my character do?" you *are* assuming the
> authorial stance (although there are shades of the actor stance there
> too, to be sure, at least as we originally defined the terms--which is,
> I think, part of the larger problem here).
>
I'm asking you what use is your originally proposed definition? What
distinction does it make? What _doesn't_ it encompass?
> Any time you assume an orientation to the game that is analagous to the
> orientation that an author has to a work in progress, you are assuming
> the author stance.
>
I find analogies to be slippery things. I tend to think that
everything in roleplaying games, even down to creating maps or rolling
random encounters, can be analogized to "the orientation that an author
has to a work in progress". No joke: books on creative writing often
recommend putting together random elements-- e.g. by drawing
three-by-five cards with character and plot elements from a hat-- to
stimulate new lines of thought; then there's Raymond Chandler's (I think
it was) famous dictum that whenever you get stuck in a plot, it's time
for someone to walk through the door with a gun in hand. The question
then becomes whether the analogy is at all useful; at the moment I don't
see how this one is.
...snip....
> The way you
> are construing the author stance is not the way Sarah and I did. If
> "original intent" means anything (and it doesn't, necessarily) then you
> are not using the term in its original sense. I did not intend to
> restrict the author stance to "enhancing the drama of the game" or
> "making a better plot" or even "making a better story."
I don't care about original intent, just about communication. If you
don't want to restrict author stance to "enhancing the drama of the
game", or whatever, I don't have a problem with that--my only problem is
with understanding how you do intend to restrict the meaning of author
stance, or even if you do.
...snip...
>
> Since it seems unlikely to me that you really disagree with that, I
> conclude that we are miscommunicating somewhere. Maybe you can restate
> your understanding of the term?
>
I no longer have any understanding of what you mean by the term,
other than perhaps an all-encompassing analogy, and propose to retire it
from my vocabulary.
Kevin
Joshua Macy wrote:
> We would seem to be talking past each other.
Apparently. I am aware that your use of the term "author stance"
includes a great many considerations--that's precisely my objection
to
it: it includes *so many* considerations that I don't see it as
being at
all useful in discussion. What, in your view, *isn't* subsumed
under
author stance?
Any time you are not approaching the game from an authorial viewpoint,
you are not in the author stance :) Round and round we go . . .
For example, when I am appreciating the role-play of others, I am not in
the author stance. When I am appreciating the portrayal of the world
from a metagame viewpoint, I am not in the author stance.
When I am focussed on the best way to portray my character to others, I
am not in the author stance.
When I am acting in the game world on the basis of having internalized
my character, feeling what my character feels, believing as my character
believes, I am not in the author stance.
One of the key insights that this analysis permits--and I hasten to add
it is not mine, but Sarah's--is that these ways of understanding and
participating in the play of the game do not mesh easily with each
other. Group decisions to highlight or emphasize one or more of the
stances will carry costs. The stances balance uneasily against each
other, and decisions to privilege one stance come at the expense of the
others. Moreover, to a certain degree ALL stances are always present
when we role-play--so all rpgs consist of a shifting balance of
stances. For me anyway, once I saw that, I could make more informed
decisions about what it was I was trying to accomplish. So I personally
have found the four stance model useful, because it permitted me to
assess the costs as well as the gains of various rpg styles.
It's not a matter of attacking how I play--I'm not sensitive on
that
score; it's a matter of how to describe how I play.
Why are you sensitive on this score? If you don't find the four stance
model useful, then don't use it!
You would describe
it as author stance, but you would also describe as author stance
methods of play that I don't do, and would be loathe to do.
Yes. Its inclusive of a general set of orientations towards the
game--particular ways of looking at and perticipating in the game. That
you would find some of those orientations objectionable does not
surprise me. But the orientations you laud do have something in common
with those you decry--which is the point, in part, of the analysis.
What, then,
does my telling you that I play using author stance (according to
your
definition) tell you about the way that I play? Not much, as far as
I
can see.
It tells me that you are not participating in the game, making sense of
the game, from one of the other stances. Which, depending on what your
agenda is, what it is you are trying to analyze, can be useful.
I no longer have any understanding of what you mean by the term,
other than perhaps an all-encompassing analogy, and propose to
retire it
from my vocabulary.
Fair enough--under the circumstances, I applaud your decision. If the
terminology doesn't perform useful work for you, don't use it.
Best,
Kevin
Kevin
Scott DiBerardino wrote:
There does seem to be a need to use more than one stance at once or
consecutively.
Yes--part of the original analysis was to point out how often we shift
back and forth between stances. In my experience people very rarely
inhabit purely a single stance. Even so, the group as a whole very
often makes decisions to emphasize one or more stances as being more
valuable or more akin to what they are after in an rpg--part of the
point of the original analysis (courtesy of Sarah Kahn) was to point out
what the costs of doing that are.
If there is something to be portrayed, which is determined
by putting on the Author cap, then one must assume the Actor stance
to do
so. I guess I am confused by what "portrayal issues" are.
Well, in a recent game I was playing CC, a military-trained killer with
strongly suicidal tendancies. CC watched his mentor and friend die in
the Gulf War, and feels responsible for his friend's death. (There's
lots more to the back story than this, and CC is not quite so
unidimensional and cliched as this brief description makes him appear.)
At various points in the game I have made decisions based on portarying
this aspect of his character to the other players. In small,
local-color scenes I will often make decisions not from the
Method-stance (for one thing, CC is so different from me that I have
difficulty wearing his emotions, as it were--although that is in part
why I am playing the character), or from the authorial stance, but
rather with considerations of portrayal--I want to give the other
*players* insight into CC's character. Sometimes this means balancing
what I know about what CC *should* do against the benefits of portraying
forcefully his inner emptional imbalance. (Obviously, btw, this kind of
rpg is not for everybody--the game is rather experimental,
actually--Mark Wallace is running it :)
The key thing here is that my prime concern is metagame--how best to
reveal CC's internal character--rather than in-game--how best to play
the character as I have written him, so that he is internally
consistent. Sometimes the outcomes are identical--but the process by
which I arrived at them is not.
Anyway, Mary Kuhner has already given you a substantively similar
analysis, and hers is easier to follow :) What she said . . .
My best,
Kevin
Kevin
Doug Smith wrote:
I'm new to this NG so forgive me if my questions are seem simple.
What's wrong with using descriptive terms 'Method Acting", "Acting"
(or Regular Acting), and "3rd Person Acting" for someone who's more
detached from their character?
Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all--it preserves the original
context of the model (which grew out of analysis of the metaphor "rpg is
like theatre") and is, it seems to me, clear enough about what is being
conveyed.
Jaana--would this satisfy you?
Best,
Kevin
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
> Joshua Macy wrote:
>
>
> Any time you are not approaching the game from an authorial viewpoint,
> you are not in the author stance :) Round and round we go . . .
>
> For example, when I am appreciating the role-play of others, I am not in
> the author stance. When I am appreciating the portrayal of the world
> from a metagame viewpoint, I am not in the author stance.
>
Okay.
> When I am focussed on the best way to portray my character to others, I
> am not in the author stance.
>
Surely a large part of what an author does is seek the best way to
portray the characters he's writing about to the audience, so that ought
to be author stance as well.
> When I am acting in the game world on the basis of having internalized
> my character, feeling what my character feels, believing as my character
> believes, I am not in the author stance.
>
I wouldn't be surprised if there are authors who do that, too.
Certainly I've heard authors who claim that a particular character
writes itself, or refuses to go along with a particular plot direction;
it seems to me that must be based on the same sort of internalization.
...snip...
>
> It's not a matter of attacking how I play--I'm not sensitive on
> that
> score; it's a matter of how to describe how I play.
>
> Why are you sensitive on this score? If you don't find the four stance
> model useful, then don't use it!
>
I thought it was useful, until you started explicating it.
Carl D. Cravens
All the humor aside, I believe the intent was "view point".
My dictionary calls it (in definition 2) "The attitude adopted toward a
particular thing." (i.e. "What's your stance on gun control?") It
specifically notes that this is an American usage, which might be why
you question it.
Our usage may still be a little inappropriate though, if we really do
mean "view point."
(Your humor didn't go unappreciated, though.)
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net) * Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver
* http://www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx
If at first you don't succeed, try 2nd or shortstop.
Carl D. Cravens
On 10 Apr 1997 09:58:30 GMT, Jaana Heino <jant...@cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:
>"Immersive" is fine with me, but I *strongly* disagree using "IC" for
>'having to think through', simply because that *definitely* is not how
>people outside this newsgroup (or inside it, so far) tend to use it. One
>definitely is IC when being immersive, isn't one?
>
>I suggest that "IC" from this on refers to doing something 'as the
>character', and that it is not at all used as one of the stances. So
>the Four Stances would be Actor, Author, Audience and Immersive, and you
>could be IC and do things IC in all of them. In Actor, you would talk
>and behave IC, and in Immersive you might also feel and think IC...
I would agree with this myself... use in-character to mean nothing but
in-character, the opposite of out-of-character, again.
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net) * Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver
* http://www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx
Hey! Lower your landing gear! !@#$*!?% NO HARRIER
Carl D. Cravens
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:39:59 -0700, Joshua Macy <jm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The problem I see with that is that while there might be _something_
>authorial going on when you ask yourselves those questions, they seem a
>pretty far cry (and perhaps even opposite in intent) to asking yourself
>"What could my character do that would make for a great dramatic moment,
>or really help the plot or mood?", which is what I understood authorial
>at the expense of broadening "author" to a confusing amount.
As an authorial player, I have to say that you've got that slightly
backwards. You first consider what your character will do in a
particular situation... *then* you ask how it affects the overall story
or campaign. If the effects are displeasing, then you rethink it if
possible.
The need for a helping the story doesn't *drive* the decision process,
but it shapes it.
So the question is, "What will I do?" followed by, "How will it affect
everything?" What the character will do is the more important of the
two, shaped by what its effects are.
Did that make sense?
--
Carl (rave...@southwind.net) * Phoenyx Roleplaying Listserver
* http://www2.southwind.net/~phoenyx
ANY system works with enough hammer thumps.
russell wallace
Relabelling "deep IC" as "immersion" is fine by me.
Regarding "Author", it seems to me that the amount of debate and
confusion there's been so far about it proves that if we're going to
change the model at all, we really ought to split it up. Here's my vote
for separating out "What would my character do now?" under something
like "Analytical", and leaving "Author" for things like "What would make
for an interesting story?"
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwal...@tcd.ie
Joshua Macy
Carl D. Cravens wrote:
>
...snip....
> backwards. You first consider what your character will do in a
> particular situation... *then* you ask how it affects the overall story
> or campaign. If the effects are displeasing, then you rethink it if
> possible.
>
> The need for a helping the story doesn't *drive* the decision process,
> but it shapes it.
>
> So the question is, "What will I do?" followed by, "How will it affect
> everything?" What the character will do is the more important of the
> two, shaped by what its effects are.
>
> Did that make sense?
>
Not to me, but I'm not an authorial player (except by Kevin's
definition).
Joshua Macy
russell wallace wrote:
>
> Relabelling "deep IC" as "immersion" is fine by me.
>
> Regarding "Author", it seems to me that the amount of debate and
> confusion there's been so far about it proves that if we're going to
> change the model at all, we really ought to split it up. Here's my vote
> for separating out "What would my character do now?" under something
> like "Analytical", and leaving "Author" for things like "What would make
> for an interesting story?"
>
That makes a lot of sense to me, although it still seems to leave a
gap. Under the old model, I would have called myself an "IC" player,
but not a "deep IC" player. I figured out what my character would do,
most of the time, by trying to think like my character rather than
analyze what my character would think...but I never experienced emotions
the way my character would, or any of that other "deep IC" stuff.
Irina Rempt
Psychohist (psych...@aol.com) wrote:
> Consider the case of someone who ad-libs a humorous line, without thinking
> about it - just to make a spur of the moment joke. But assume that it's
> at the character level - say, the humor of the statement can only be
> understood in the context of the character's world, not of the player's
> world.
[...]
> Assume the line is not particularly consistent with the character's
> personality, so it doesn't come from immersive play.
[...]
> I'd argue that the player is in actor mode here.
I'd argue that the *character* is in actor mode. Everybody says things
occasionally that aren't particularly consistent with their
personality; at least I do, as well as everybody I know well enough to
tell when something is consistent. When it happens to me, I immediately
notice and wonder where it came from.
I'd find a character less believable (more crafted, "authored" if
*everything* they said was consistent with their
personality-as-conceived.
Irina
--
ir...@rempt.xs4all.nl
-------------------- Lingua Latina Occasionibus Omnibus --------------------
XII. "Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaana Heino
Well, yes and no. It would satisfy me if I was speaking just about how
the player goes about acting out her character... but I don't think they
have much to do with the Stances, really. Where are the meta or scene
considerations of "Author" here, for instance?
--
Jaana Heino-----------------email: jant...@cc.helsinki.fi----
Iivisniemenkuja 4 F 70----------------------------------------
02260 Espoo--------------------"Life is a hard lesson."-------
FINLAND-------------------------------------------------------
Kevin
Joshua Macy wrote:
> For example, when I am appreciating the role-play of others, I am
not in
> the author stance. When I am appreciating the portrayal of the
world
> from a metagame viewpoint, I am not in the author stance.
>
Okay.
> When I am focussed on the best way to portray my character to
others, I
> am not in the author stance.
>
Surely a large part of what an author does is seek the best way to
portray the characters he's writing about to the audience, so that
ought
to be author stance as well.
Yes--there is a sense in which what you say is true. For that reason,
Sarah and I felt it useful to distinguish the other stances. The reason
we bothered to define them in the first place was to distinghuish
particular activities from the others, since we felt they had especial
relevance to role-play.
If you want to think of the actor and method stances as subsets of
author, that is OK by me. I would prefer, however, to define author in
such a fashion as to exclude the actor and method stances--I think it is
more useful that way.
> When I am acting in the game world on the basis of having
internalized
> my character, feeling what my character feels, believing as my
character
> believes, I am not in the author stance.
>
I wouldn't be surprised if there are authors who do that, too.
Certainly I've heard authors who claim that a particular character
writes itself, or refuses to go along with a particular plot
direction;
it seems to me that must be based on the same sort of
internalization.
I agree--I do think that the distinction between internalization and
what I have been calling "author" is useful, however. We have to draw
distinctions somewhere, it seems to me, if we want to accomplish any
useful work.
AFAICT the problem, for you, is that you want to expand the typology to
include a category that covers the attitude a player or GM assumes when
they ARE explicitly acting to advance a story or plot. This strikes me
as useful, and very much in keeping with the original analysis.
Certainly there are GMs and players who do make decisions in the game
based on such agendas.
My critique of this proposal is that it is not inclusive of ALL that an
author does. If we exclude the other stances (Actor/Portrayal,
Method/Immersive) from "author," and in addition exclude considerations
of story-telling and plot, it does not seem to me that we are left with
a null category. There is stuff left in the category that we can
usefully describe as author. This includes, I would contend, the player
or GM who has to rationalize or intellectualize a character's actions,
much as you describe how you play.
Or, put it another way, not all authors set out to tell a story.
Maybe the solution here is explicitly to hive off the
story-telling/plot-oriented side of the author stance into a separate
category, which we might call the "story-telling stance."
> Why are you sensitive on this score? If you don't find the four
stance
> model useful, then don't use it!
>
I thought it was useful, until you started explicating it.
Sorry about that. Under the circumstances, what would you suggest I do
differently?
Best,
Kevin
Kevin
Jaana Heino wrote:
Kevin wrote:
>Doug Smith wrote:
> I'm new to this NG so forgive me if my questions are seem simple.
> What's wrong with using descriptive terms 'Method Acting",
"Acting"
> (or Regular Acting), and "3rd Person Acting" for someone who's
more
> detached from their character?
>Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all--it preserves the
original
>context of the model (which grew out of analysis of the metaphor
"rpg is
>like theatre") and is, it seems to me, clear enough about what is
being
>conveyed.
>Jaana--would this satisfy you?
Well, yes and no. It would satisfy me if I was speaking just about
how
the player goes about acting out her character... but I don't think
they
have much to do with the Stances, really. Where are the meta or
scene
considerations of "Author" here, for instance?
Sorry to leave the entire post above unsnipped--it seemed clearer that
way.
Anyway, the typology is incomplete. In other posts in this thread
Joshua and I have been discussing the author stance. I think part of
the problem is the connotations of "author" which Joshua finds
unappealing. As a professional author (albeit of non-fiction) the terms
do not share the same connotations for me as they apparantly do for him.
Anyway, if all if this boils down to issues of labels, then the argument
seems easy enough to settle :)
One way to address these semantic issues is to rearrange the
labels--here is one schema that might work:
Original Term New Term(s)
Author \
\ Third person actor
/
/ Story-telling
Actor \
\ Method-actor/Immersive
/
/ Portrayal
Audience > Audience
IC \
\ Third Person Actor
/
/ Method Actor/Immersive
In the new schema, IC dissappears entirely, replaced by Third Person
Actor (the stance that Joshua uses to play his characters, for example)
and Method/Immersive (the stance that Mary Kuhner, John Kim, myself, and
others strive for).
Actor becomes Method/Immersive and Portrayal. Neither of these terms
strike me as controversial--there seems to be broad agreement as to what
they mean, and also as to their utility.
Similarly, Author dissappears too--replaced by Third Person Actor (which
I had previously classified as Author) and Story/Plot-Oriented.
Audience remains what it always was.
Now one problem I have with this new schema (as I have been arguing with
Joshua elsewhere) is that it still leaves out ways of participating in
the game that strike me as strongly authorial. What, for example, do we
do with the player who improvises part of the setting during the game?
As I argued earlier, you can do that in such a fashion that it
strenghtens Method Acting/Immersion, and is not oriented towards
enhancing the story or plot, or even the drama of a scene. I would
argue, however, that you have to leave the Immersive/Method stance in
order to do this--it involves thinking about the game differently, if
perhaps only very briefly. Such a player is, then, neither Immersive
nor Story-telling. Would you feel comfortable describing such a player
as Third-Person Acting? I'm not at all sure that Joshua would (how
about it, Joshua?)
All my best,
Kevin
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
>
....snip...
> Actor (the stance that Joshua uses to play his characters, for example)
> and Method/Immersive (the stance that Mary Kuhner, John Kim, myself, and
> others strive for).
>
> Actor becomes Method/Immersive and Portrayal. Neither of these terms
> strike me as controversial--there seems to be broad agreement as to what
> they mean, and also as to their utility.
>
> Similarly, Author dissappears too--replaced by Third Person Actor (which
> I had previously classified as Author) and Story/Plot-Oriented.
> Audience remains what it always was.
>
....snip...
> Such a player is, then, neither Immersive
> nor Story-telling. Would you feel comfortable describing such a player
> as Third-Person Acting? I'm not at all sure that Joshua would (how
> about it, Joshua?)
I'm pretty sure that I don't quite know what you mean by "third person
actor."
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
...snip...
>
> AFAICT the problem, for you, is that you want to expand the typology to
> include a category that covers the attitude a player or GM assumes when
> they ARE explicitly acting to advance a story or plot. This strikes me
> as useful, and very much in keeping with the original analysis.
> Certainly there are GMs and players who do make decisions in the game
> based on such agendas.
>
I think that rather than expanding the typology, I would restrict it.
My real problem is that under the old terminology, at least as I
understood it, it was quite clear to me how to describe my style of play
(IC, but not Deep IC), and to differentiate it from a stance that
allows/favors metagame considerations, whether from the point of view of
advancing plot/creating drama or creating bits of business and scenery
ad hoc (what I thought was covered by authorial), or from a stance which
allows/favors considerations of portrayal for the benefit of other
players (what I thought was covered by actor). Everything described by
IC seemed of a piece to me, if carried out to different degrees. What's
covered by author, though, as you describe it, seems to me to be several
quite different styles of play, with different orientations and
philosophies as far as metagame considerations as well as different
approaches to actually playing.
> Joshua Macy wrote:
> I thought it was useful, until you started explicating it.
>
> Sorry about that. Under the circumstances, what would you suggest I do
> differently?
Nothing in particular--if I don't understand the terminology or find
it useful, I just won't use it. I thought, though, that you might like
to know why it seemed confusing or unhelpful to me. I'm not really sure
what your objection to IC was, so I don't know if it can be addressed to
both our satisfactions.
Psychohist
Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
As a start towards this, how would you define
"simulationist?"
I like the 'realistic, not dramatic, and natural, not directed'
definition.
... Just what are you trying to "simulate?" (Please
do not assume a hostile agenda when I frame the
question this way :)
I could say that the my game is simulating the world of the Eastern Isles,
but most people would deny any independent existence of that world outside
the game. In this way, the term 'simulationist' is a bit of a misnomer.
But the alternative terms I might use would be insufficiently neutral to
prevent flame wars.
If you were to fill in the following sentence
"simulationist rpg is like X," what would "X" be?
"A simulationist role playing game is a world." Note the lack of the word
'like'. Metaphors are not always the best ways to understand things.
Limiting the terms to a specialized metaphor seems
to me to limit their utility.
I quite agree--but I think this is a virtue, not a flaw.
Limiting the utility of a term is a virtue? Is this really what you mean
to say?
Let me give an example to illustrate what I mean. In the discussion of
immersive play a few months ago, I noticed correlation between immersive
play and simulationist games, and a dichotomy between simulationist and
story oriented games.
This led me to the realization that a certain player whom I like a lot and
had been encouraging to rejoin my game in fact seemed to be primarily an
audience stance player - and that that was not a good match for my
strictly simulationist game. So I quit bugging him about it.
I made actual, productive use of the understanding of immersive play - and
the understanding that it's not what everyone aims for - without ever
realizing that the 'stances' originated in anything so obscure, to me, as
a metaphor to drama. (Hey, I hate plays, and I average less than one
movie every two years.)
Are you saying that I shouldn't have done that? That I should still be
wasting my time figuring out ways to interest this particular player when,
in fact, he probably wouldn't fit in with the rest of my gaming group?
Warren Dew
Psychohist
Responding to Kevin's suggestion:
METHOD stance (which explicitly references the method actor)
AUTHORstance
AUDIENCE stance
ACTOR stance (now explicitly narrowed down to issues of portrayal)
Jaana Heino posts, in part:
I would not really like this. One major part of the
beauty of the original four stances (imho, of course)
was how it separated the three ways I definitely feel
in my own play. If you narrow what was called
'Actor' into just portrayal, you loose the distinction
between what was called 'IC' and 'Author'. The terms
are not very good, maybe - there seems to be some value
judgements relating to 'IC' involved, too - but the
distinction is there, and I would like to keep it there.
I'm with Jaana here.
In fact, I'd say that it's the terms and their implied categorization, and
not their original definitions, that are really useful. The terms help us
clarify our thinking when we assign our own definitions to them. 'IC' and
'Deep IC' were less useful than the others, because of ambiguity, thus the
replacement with the term 'immersion'.
I think 'method' is poorly chosen, since a lot of what goes into method
acting is subjecting the actor to the things the characters is subjected
to. I doubt if most immersive players stay up all night to simulate their
characters' lack of sleep, or live on moldy bread while their characters
are in prison. True method acting seems more appropriate to live action
games than to table top games.
Warren Dew
Kevin
Joshua Macy wrote:
I'm pretty sure that I don't quite know what you mean by "third
person
actor."
Oh. Sorry . . .
OK--what I mean is that way of participating in a game in which, before
stating what your character does, you take time to ask yourself "what
should my character do in this situation?" or "How should my character
react in this situation?" Or, put another way, in which you have not
internalized your character, and so must think through what your
character does and how your character responds. Typically, for me
anyway, this invloves taking into consideration the character's
back-story, or what I have previously determined about his phychological
dispositions. Whatever, very often I have to think it through, before I
do anything in-character. This is quite different from those (rare, for
me) times when I successfully internalize my character, in the fashion
of the method actor, and don't have to think through, for example, my
character's emotional reaction to something happening in the game.
Hopefully this clarifies things--in your terminolgy, as I understand it,
IC maps to Third Person Actor, and
Deep IC maps to Method/Immersive.
Does this make sense?
Best,
Kevin
Kevin
Joshua Macy wrote:
Nothing in particular--if I don't understand the terminology or
find
it useful, I just won't use it. I thought, though, that you might
like
to know why it seemed confusing or unhelpful to me. I'm not really
sure
what your objection to IC was, so I don't know if it can be
addressed to
both our satisfactions.
Well, I do think ours has been a useful and productive exchange--that's
why I've pursued it. You have pushed me to refine my thinking, which on
the whole is a good thing.
I've gotten testy, I suppose, over what I have perceived as a derisive
attitude towards me from you--but perhaps I'm being too sensitive. I've
been burned alot in recent exchanges, not just with you but with others,
and it has made me considerable more suspicious of people's intentions
lately.
But whatever, I am interested in pursuing this conversation further, and
it does strike me as adding depth to my understanding of rpg.
My best,
Kevin
scott....@3do.com
In article <19970414175...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Agreement here. I do believe that the four stances seem to describe well
what I have observed and played. I also agree that 'Method' is a poor
term for this discussion as the theatrical connotations can be
confusing, it is also confusing when people talk of other 'methods of
resolution', 'methods of character generation' et. The word itself is
common enough not to having another meaning on it. I would agree to the
term 'Immersive'.
Scott
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
....snip...
> Whatever, very often I have to think it through, before I
> do anything in-character. This is quite different from those (rare, for
> me) times when I successfully internalize my character, in the fashion
> of the method actor, and don't have to think through, for example, my
> character's emotional reaction to something happening in the game.
>
I think that leaves me somewhere in between--I often can do cognitive
things first person in character, but never experience emotions first
person in character--still it comports better with my experience of
playing (and my understanding of the way my friends play) than before.
> Hopefully this clarifies things--in your terminolgy, as I understand it,
>
> IC maps to Third Person Actor, and
> Deep IC maps to Method/Immersive.
>
So what becomes of Actor simply as performer--a method of acting out
the decisions made, for the benefit of the other players and GM as an
audience, but not as a method of arriving at IC decisions in the first
place?
Joshua Macy
Kevin wrote:
>
...snip...
>
> I've gotten testy, I suppose, over what I have perceived as a derisive
> attitude towards me from you--but perhaps I'm being too sensitive. I've
> been burned alot in recent exchanges, not just with you but with others,
> and it has made me considerable more suspicious of people's intentions
> lately.
>
seemed derisive, that wasn't the intent.
> But whatever, I am interested in pursuing this conversation further, and
> it does strike me as adding depth to my understanding of rpg.
>
Ok. Here's a question that occurred to me as I was mulling over the
third-person actor, immersive/method tags: why identify the methods of
staying in character with acting in the first place? It actually seems
to me that both stances would be regarded by actual actors as being
variations on method, since they're both methods of generating responses
from within, rather than taking responses as dictated by the script and
director and simulating them coming from within. It would be much
closer to actual (non-method) acting if the player were to decide what
the character was going to do based on authorial considerations and then
play them out as if they had arisen from the character.
krhr...@washingtonian.infi.net
On 14 Apr 1997 17:44:06 GMT, psych...@aol.com (Psychohist) wrote:
>Kevin Hardwick posts, in part:
>
> As a start towards this, how would you define
> "simulationist?"
>
>I like the 'realistic, not dramatic, and natural, not directed'
>definition.
The only problem I have with this is that it fails to capture what I
do :)
That is, I would contend that my games are realsitic AND dramatic.
The other opposition works better, for me--natural and directed do
strike me as exclusive.
> ... Just what are you trying to "simulate?" (Please
> do not assume a hostile agenda when I frame the
> question this way :)
>
>I could say that the my game is simulating the world of the Eastern Isles,
>but most people would deny any independent existence of that world outside
>the game. In this way, the term 'simulationist' is a bit of a misnomer.
>But the alternative terms I might use would be insufficiently neutral to
>prevent flame wars.
On what basis do you make choices of what to simulate? After all, you
cannot simulate everything. You discriminate, you must. What is the
principle by which you do so?
Don't sweat the terminology, at least for my sake. As long as you are
willing to concede that what I do is valid, and I likewise for you, I
think we can avoid flammage :)
> If you were to fill in the following sentence
> "simulationist rpg is like X," what would "X" be?
>
>"A simulationist role playing game is a world." Note the lack of the word
>'like'. Metaphors are not always the best ways to understand things.
Well, maybe. But that is another argument, and not one that we need
to go into here :)
The problem is that it can't be a world--you haven't got sufficient
time and energy to make it complete. So it has to be only part of a
world. How do you decide what part to simulate?
> Limiting the terms to a specialized metaphor seems
> to me to limit their utility.
>
> I quite agree--but I think this is a virtue, not a flaw.
>
>Limiting the utility of a term is a virtue?
Smile. In retrospect, that was a pretty stupid thing to write, wasn't
it?
I guess what I really mean is that I think limiting the scope of the
term is a good thing.
>Let me give an example to illustrate what I mean. In the discussion of
>immersive play a few months ago, I noticed correlation between immersive
>play and simulationist games, and a dichotomy between simulationist and
>story oriented games.
>
>This led me to the realization that a certain player whom I like a lot and
>had been encouraging to rejoin my game in fact seemed to be primarily an
>audience stance player - and that that was not a good match for my
>strictly simulationist game. So I quit bugging him about it.
>
>I made actual, productive use of the understanding of immersive play - and
>the understanding that it's not what everyone aims for - without ever
>realizing that the 'stances' originated in anything so obscure, to me, as
>a metaphor to drama. (Hey, I hate plays, and I average less than one
>movie every two years.)
>
>Are you saying that I shouldn't have done that? That I should still be
>wasting my time figuring out ways to interest this particular player when,
>in fact, he probably wouldn't fit in with the rest of my gaming group?
Good Lord, no! I'm glad that the original analysis had that kind of
usefulness for you. This is certainly the way that I use it, all the
time.
But I think that it is important to recognize where the insights came
from, because that lets you recognize their limitations. I do not
think that the terms are universally applicable. They come from a
particular way of looking at the game--once you recognize that, you
are better positioned, it seems to me, to use the stances in a
critical fashion.
I'm not suggesting that you don't use them--all I am saying is that I
see goodness in preserving the connotations of the original analysis,
since that highlights both the origin of the terms and some of the
potential blinders that may be built into them.
My best,
Kevin