thread: 2009-07-26 : Very Briefly about Authority
On 2009-07-27, Bwian wrote:
I have read Ron's list of types of authorities; they seem reasonably clear. I assume they are intended only to govern authority in relation to fictional content? Otherwise there are surely other authorities in relation to play procedure.
1. Moment-to-moment assent trumps pre-agreed authority, in every case.
Sure!
Excluding cases of coercion, this probably applies to many (all?) games? If participants choose to act contrary to the 'rules' or prior agreements, habits or conventions, there is nothing to stop them.
Surely we take for granted that people are going to take whatever 'game material' you give them and do whatever emerges from their group with it. This is not to say that a designer should derelict his/ her duty/ desire to make something fun/ useful/ good for the audience. Just that it seems unlikely that RPGs will ever be played exactly 'as per designer's intent' (unless that intent is pretty general); hell people even play Monopoly 'wrong' (i.e. not strictly according to the written rules).
Is that what you meant?
Aside:
The term 'authority' is a potential source of grief in this discussion. Are we considering 'authority' in the sense of:
a) 'practical ability to win/maintain the assent of the group to your preferred fictional outcome in a particular case', (i.e. they let me have the can of peaches, so I had authority in that case); or
b) 'tendency over time for others to assent - or give a considered response to - your suggestions', (i.e. I may or may not get away with the peaches, but in general the group takes my input on those kinds of things seriously); or
c) 'mandate explicitly granted to perform certain defined types of actions', (i.e. the rules say in black and white that I can make it part of the fiction that my character has everyday objects in its possession); or
d) some other sense?
Very roughly it looks like my 'authority (a)' corresponds somehow with your 'moment-to-moment assent'.
2. Any well-designed roleplaying game will assign (at least some) authority upfront
Once again, this is arguably true of very many games? Games almost by definition include things players may and may not do in the context of the game. These may not always be spelled out as 'rules' - examples and flavour-text can also carry a lot of weight.
3. Some very good designers consider the assignment of authority to be the point of rpg design. I do not.
I agree. 'I do not' either.
Seems to me that designing an rpg might have many different purposes, which can vary from person to person and case to case. One of these might be creating a game product that is easy for people to use in a way that they enjoy. Thinking carefully about the division of functions among roles in the game, and how to provide clear, 'authoritative'* guidance about the various roles might often help with that.
* i.e. authoritative = 'of a nature likely to elicit compliance'.
Agree absolutely that 'setting expectations and granting permission' are pretty important considerations in developing a product.
Forgive me, but I can't resist noting that 'granting permission' is often a synonym of 'authorising'... ;0 (and I'm an Aussie so I can spell 'authorising' that way, so there!)
Also, while 'setting expectations' can serve a number of functions, one of the functions it often serves is to increase the 'authority (b)' associated with certain types of player behaviours and fictional content.
So maybe you would be able to clarify further what you mean at 3?
Cheers
Bwian
