thread: 2009-07-26 : Very Briefly about Authority
On 2009-08-04, Ron Edwards wrote:
You're not disagreeing with me as much as you say you are.
When I talk about assigning authority, I'm talking about the functional effect at the table, not any particular negotiated designation prior to play.
If you think by "assign" I mean *only* a rule like a Monologue of Victory in The Pool text, that does not reflect what I'm driving at.
Such a rule can only be seen in the light of all textual rules: methods of drawing attention to producing some at-the-table functional, social, creative *effect.* Such rules are not rock-solid even if they are written in big bold letters; for instance, social pressures at the table may override a player's authority during a Monologue of Victory, for instance.
I enjoy such rules in many cases and have often seen how using them breaks open new avenues for creative and eventful play. But they only work if they facilitate what the group is already (perhaps unknowingly) collectively able to do: to assign authority post-hoc by the assent of all, exactly as you phrased it. Or perhaps post-hoc is best described as "right there in that instant."
I write about effects almost exclusively. Social Contract is a good example - I am not talking about any verbal agreements among the people, but about what has *emerged,* functionally or otherwise, recognized or otherwise, through the history of these people interacting. You can see me making this distinction in my review of Universalis, where I say that their rules-based Social Contract is not actually the Social Contract.
I request that you or anyone interested look over that thread called "Silent Railroading" again, with an eye towards agents and actors. I think my usage is like yours.
Let me know if that makes sense to you.
