Actor vs Author

Roleplaying games are funny things.  Two people can both play roleplaying games, and it would seem they share the same hobby.  They gather with friends and use rules to create stories.  But depending on how they look at the game and their role in it they can have vastly different preferences and experiences, and in fact would likely not enjoy each others games very much.  This isn't a bad thing, and doesn't mean that one is playing right and the other wrong.  One area of difference that often goes unspoken is whether they look at themselves as an Actor or an Author.

A vast majority of articles on RPGs have to do with being  GM.  And its a hard, intimidating job that is essential to the hobby.  This one is about players, and how understanding what you want out of a game and how you look at gaming is an important part of that.  It's important for GMs as well, because you want to know your players.  Odds are, you've got a little of both.

Actors enjoy the game through roleplaying another person, often in dangerous or fantastic situations.  Background and history are important to them, as they give them a guideline to who this fictional person is and what decisions they would make.  Internal consistency is vital as well.  If the game world doesn't make sense and have context its harder for them to understand both their character and the larger world they live in.  To an Actor, the primary question they ask when faced with a difficult choice is "What would my character do?"

Authors, on the other hand, don't put as much into their individual character as they do the story that is created.  They need to know about the concepts and genre the game is based on, what kinds of conflicts the GM intends to introduce, and how the other characters relate to them.  Their primary question is 'What would make for a cool story?", regardless of how much sense it makes for the character.  People do nonsensical things all the time, and to an Author creating a fun, memorable story is more important that sticking to a consistent character.

Even the same decision could come about from these different stances.  Let's imagine John the Actor and Dave the Author both have characters in a game.  They have traveled through dangerous lands and fought their way to the Overlord's castle.  The overlord explains that he sent his armies because the ancient laws mandate that he should be king, and the current nobility disregard his claim.   John's character has long kept to the old laws, and followed them to the letter.  He decides to join with the overlord, against his companion's wishes.  To John, he is simply being true to his character.  Dave also decides to side with the Overlord.  His character doesn't care anything for the ancient laws, but he thinks if two of them decide the Overlord is right it would make for a cooler story.  The two of them either have to convince the rest of the party of his claim, agree to back down, or some other conflict.

Understanding yourself, and your players, can reduce the conflict a group sees.  It also reflects what kind of mechanics each player will likely enjoy.  Actors will be more likely to enjoy systems with a solid mechanical grounding, where the rules reflect a fantasy world laws of physics, such as GURPS or D&D 3rd Edition.  Authors tend to favor systems with metagame mechanics such as FATE or Savage Worlds.  Both of these have special points that can be spent to provide plot immunity or introduction of plot twists by players.  Most systems can accommodate both.

So where do you stand?  Actor or Author?