I/We versus Player/Author

[u/BLHero]

Online I often read about "player stance" where a Player thinks and speaks in-character for a single PC, compared to "author stance" where one or more Players discuss how they want the story to develop.

Sometimes the "author stance" is meta-game strategizing. Sometimes it is cooperative world-building.

Those contrasting phrases always felt a bit odd. After all, if I am writing a novel I will often shift into "player stance" when writing about what a single character is thinking, saying, and doing -- but I remain the novel's author even at those times.

Today at the ttrpg table I noticed one friend (who has never discussed these issues) had a different vocabulary. She would quite clearly use a contrast between "I will..." and "Let's..."

When she used variants of "I will..." (perhaps with less certainty "What if I...?" or "I could...") it might be brainstorming as her PC, declaring her PC's action, having her PC signal or share knowledge with another PC, etc.

When she used variants of "Let's..." (perhaps with less certainty "What if we...?" or "We could...") it was never declaring an action unless the GM had specifically asked her to contribute to cooperative world-building. It was always exploring options, and her language always made it clear if this was something being brainstormed by the PCs in-character or some meta-gaming strategizing.

What are your stories about a Player who has naturally noticed the distinction between "I will..." and "Let's..." and used it effectively?

[u/Unlucky-Leopard-9905]

When she used variants of "I will..." (perhaps with less certainty "What if I...?" or "I could...") it might be brainstorming as her PC, declaring her PC's action, having her PC signal or share knowledge with another PC, etc.

When she used variants of "Let's..." (perhaps with less certainty "What if we...?" or "We could...") it was never declaring an action unless the GM had specifically asked her to contribute to cooperative world-building. It was always exploring options, and her language always made it clear if this was something being brainstormed by the PCs in-character or some meta-gaming strategizing.

This just sounds like normal speech, and singular or group pronouns being used as appropriate, for the most part.

If I'm letting people know what I'm going to do, I use I. "I'm going to have Mexican for lunch today".

Alternatively, if I'm discussing group plans, I'm more likely to say, "We could get Mexican," or "Let's get Mexican."

[u/BetterCallStrahd]

It's normal for people to slip in and out of speaking in character. I'd say it's actually rare for someone to consistently maintain the same mode throughout the session. Maybe your group is different.

Anyway, since your observations are based on your tablemate, you should discuss this with her and find out what her intentions actually were. Why stick to just guessing?

[u/Dry_Major4728]

so what do you actually call it when you're doing worldbuilding together?

[u/fankin]

I have never met anyone who felt this kind of importance for this exact toppic. I never tought that someone has an AHA moment for this. No offense, more power to you for feeling it, but this sounds like you actually touched the grass and you are gooooood. Kudos.

[u/etkii]

Familiar with player stances, but I've never heard of "player stance".

[u/BrobaFett]

First, it's so shitty that people are downvoting you. I wish this sub was more receptive to posts like this amid the "Help recommend me an RPG that mimics Videogame X" and "What is your favorite Y" posts.

I think sometimes people are punished for having strong opinions.

To answer your questions, the answer really is in the context and what the player is doing when they are using that vocabulary because it might fit either stance.

For example, Amy is playing Grunhilda the witch:

"Let's go check out the river bend for clues" when asked by Grunhilda (to anyone within earshot) is player stance. When asked by Amy to the other players is authorial stance.

Combat is a great example of where this happens. Point at the battlemap and say,0" if you move here you can flank the goblin". Versus, "Get behind the goblin, flank him!".

There's a great deal of overlap because, often, the player and characters share the same questions, goals, etc. To me, the easier distinction is in-character vs out of character. Is the player remaining in character? Then, everything they are doing, by definition, is player stance. The way that works the best for me at my table is reinforcing when the players are expected to remain in character. My tables like a fully in-character approach during play, so discussing this early helps.