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

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

Fascinating how differently people approach the same hobby.

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

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

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

In particular, see the Specialist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: StuartI think any action a player chooses to make in an RPG is about making the game "fun" for them.  If you choose a course of action that you think would be: more realistic / better narrative / more in character -- that's about trying to play the game the best way possible (as you understand it) and about making the game more fun for you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good now.

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

Looks good now.

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

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

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

In particular, see the Specialist.

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



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

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

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

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

Director: Describing stuff that is not through the agency of your character ("So I grab a bottle off of the bar" when you're just now narrating that the bar has bottles ... plausible, but still new narration)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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