thread: 2009-07-26 : Very Briefly about Authority
On 2009-08-04, Josh W wrote:
Vincent, I'd say that drawing out contributions in authority language is something more like "give a player exclusive authority over a blank area and then require that area to be filled for play to continue".
But that's more like "demand contributions" than "draw them out", doing it more gently would be asking them to think about it before the crunch point comes, as part of their role within the game, or other implicit information mechanics (positioning?) so when it comes they have the satisfaction of being up to the challenge. Something like that.
In the same way constraints bound player authority for useful effect, such as how "elimination" in universalis blocks out a component from future appearance, forcing the story to move on (something TV programs like Smallville could have done with).
In the snake example, people are at least ok with the idea because they haven't challenged it, and may be incentivised to use it because it is now a dice source, but it's future importance is also backed up by it's fact status in the challenge mechanism, which is the big authority thing. So I'd say it's both. It's been through the authority thing, and is still protected by it, but people grow to like it (at least) because it is a source of influence.
I think one of the things the basic universalis rules don't emphasise, although I wish they would, is what players are giving to each other by playing together. There's a bit about a thousand suprises and the associated duty to think ahead, but I'd like to see more of the equivalent of GM advice. But then perhaps that is easy; I might try looking through other games with GM advice and seeing if it can be made to apply. It seems like encouraging this giving within the rules is something that helps a game capture people, because it uses the other players as it's agents to draw them in!
