Post

For Halloween, I'm embracing my most diabolical impulses. To that end, I've written a player advice manifesto on the One True Way to play games- Pawn Stance. Read it, and be horrified at the lack of nuance. Come fight me about it, if you dare. diceexploder.com/posts/pawn-s...

diceexploder.comPawn Stance is Objectively Correct* - Dice Exploder*and if you disagree you’re doing it wrong.   Defining our TermsPawn Stance is an approach to play that treats the characters and events of your game as tools for...

40 reposts115 likes

the game-text is an inanimate object, it can't have goals. you are a person with interiority, so you have goals when you take actions, however subconcious or unstated they may be. "I'm going to approach this game with an open mind and have whatever experience it provides" is a goal

Thinking out loud, to me rather than a distinct stance, the idea of "pawn stance" is more foundational gaming pragmatism TTRPGs can be art, can make you feel, can hold huge narrative and intent... But they are always games first and if games aren't centered in enjoyment, it's a lost cause

It's like you're cooking a delicious soup, you throw in narrative onions, funny dice carrots, bell curve sauce, character seasoning... But you used swamp water as your stock No matter how great everything else is it's just going to taste like swamp That's what play without enjoyment first is like

does this then lead to potentially conclude that the (in-game) pursuit of exploits and power (aka 'being a munchkin') should be called 'promotion stance'...? 🤔

I'm not entirely convinced. It's a good goal to have fun with your friends, and overcoming obstacles that get in the way of that is good, but completely disregarding in-world rationales for your character's behavior kind of makes said gameworld meaningless.

So rather than having your cowardly character go on adventures just because, have them go on adventures because of reasons. Personally I don't make characters that hate adventure and teamwork to begin with, but if I did, the fun is finding a reason for them to go on adventures with a party anyway.

I'm not even saying this as a high and mighty roleplayer, I'll be the first to admit I'm a rollplayer, I like throwing dice and killing monsters, but I want to be part of constructing a coherent narrative while I do so. Even if it's a story about whacking goblins, it's more than just playing chess.

But my goals and what I find fun is taking all the other stances, so the only correct way I can take Pawn Stance is by ignoring this whole manifesto.

The examples seem like problems further upstream. If the fun is going on adventures why did you make a character too scared to do that? If you have an unbeatable strat the GM should patch the rules (or adapt tactically) rather than rely on players tying a hand behind their back

It seems to me that if you are playing a game you should have bought into its conceit and try to solve your problems through that paradigm rather than appealing to a more general "we're just here to have fun". If the game isn't fun why even play it?

My criticism as such is that I feel you redefine Pawn Stance such that it is objectively correct in the sense that there is no such thing as “not Pawn Stance” at which point it seems to me that what is being advocated for gets muddied.

As someone who was there, I see no flaw in your history. Unfortunately, you are incorrect otherwise, for only Deep Character stance (another RGFA throwback), where you "become" the character even to yourself, ought to be pursued as the One True Way.

*smash cut to a basement room* me: "not even gonna ask where you got all this CIA brainwashing equipment, i'm'a skip straight to 'why would you give _yoruself_ the personality of a 3-hp goblin...?!' " Levi: "Skrib doon; Biddy Blas!!"