thread: 2009-07-26 : Very Briefly about Authority
On 2009-07-27, Vincent wrote:
cc: Yeah, all right.
There are three points. In ascending order:
Point one: "What the players decide to do right now trumps what the rules tell them to do, trumps what they've decided to do in the past, and even trumps what they promised to do."
This is an eye-blinkingly dumb, rudimentary point. I bring it up (periodically) only because, despite it being eye-blinkingly dumb and rudimentary, periodically someone doesn't already get it.
Point two: "As a designer, it's my job to make as sure as possible that the game won't break down into moment-to-moment negotiations about raw assent despite the game's rules and the players' upfront commitment to them."
This is where you're at, as far as I can tell. This is where stuff like your "Of course moment-to-moment assent is 'fundamental', but its also often insufficient, for which purposes we appoint formal authorities as tie-breakers, and to avoid having all action hamstrung by endless negotiation" lives.
Which is to say: of course you're right about this. I agree wholly. Your "hamstrung," my "break down," k-i-s-s-i-n-g. When we appoint formal authorities, that's for certain the reason why.
Point three: "...But the brute assignment of authority is NOT how to accomplish that."
This is where I've lost you, right?
