anyway.

I disagree that someone "ignoring a game's design" isn't "playing the same game" anymore. Really it depends on what you mean by "ignoring a game's design" and "not playing the same game"—for certain values of either I could agree to it—but I think this formulation creates a very negative one-drop rule where you have people arguing with a straight face that all those guys playing AD&D without weapon-AC modifiers weren't playing AD&D at al when, across the nation, they would almost universally be recognized as playing AD&D and, in fact, their play for vast stretches would be completely indistinguishable from a game where those modifiers were used (and very hard to distinguish as a whole).

Basically I don't disagree that "things change" when people house rule or make spot decisions or what have you—but I think it's damaging to hold an iconic value of "the game" when a large number of well meaning groups—fan boys—would find themselves "not playing it' (and I mean that for fans of indie RPGs as well as traditional ones)—or even situations where many or most players might not be able to say if they played the game or not.

-Marco

Could you expand upon point 3? Is the two most critical players part of DitV's rules an example of avoiding brute assignment of authority, but also avoiding moment-to-moment negotiation? I see that rule as encouraging the group to develop lines of authority to avoid moment-to-moment negotiation, while not brute force assigning authority to the GM, or two a specific player or two.

Marco, I don't think Vincent is talking about a house rule or two in point 1. I see point 1 as for example, addressing the group ignoring the basic structure of the rules, and reverting to fudging rolls to keep the PCs alive as what point 1 is addressing.

Frank

I think in terms of what Callan and Christian are arguing about, you're asking the wrong question. A more productive frame might be:

"Bobnar walks over to the table and picks up the can of peaches."
"Okay, Bobnar has the peaches."

And then

"Oh, so Bobnar has the peaches from last time."

Followed by: "Oh, right" -or- "No, wait, he shouldn't have been able to pick up the peaches."

or the opposite case, where he doesn't pick up the peaches but then we might decide, retroactively, that he does. Or that, no, he really didn't.

Because your chamberlain thing is an example that necessarily has a time component, you have to examine the basic actions with a time dimension too.

yrs—
—Ben

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

Marco: Yeah.

Hey everybody, nobody argue about who's really playing AD&D or DitV or any given game, okay? It's not an interesting question.

The point is that you can decide in the moment to ignore or change your agreed arrangement, and yet keep playing. The game can go forward changed, with its new arrangement seamlessly superceding its old. People do it all the time.

Frank: That rule in Dogs is a good example. Nobody in Dogs has the authority to (for instance) declare that their raise counts as a legit raise. Instead, every raise has to meet the approval - win the assent - of every player at the table.

Frank and Bwian: I want to write a lot more about my position 3, but I haven't quite figured out how. It's at the leading edge of my thinking.

Here's a rough stab:

If two players' interests come into conflict, you can resolve the conflict by promoting one player's interests over the other's - by assigning authority to one player at the other's expense - or else you can resolve the conflict by reconciling the players' interests so that they go forward in alignment - in which case there's no need to assign authority.

Players' interests here, including the GM's, NOT characters', and I'm not fooling around about that.

Ben: I hesitate to guess!

In GM-strong games, the GM assents to actions such as these simply by not objecting to them. The GM still has the authority though, in an explicit, rules-governed sense to allow or object. In other games, other players are empowered to object within the rules framework. I don't think this is much different from explicitly accepting every suggestion. So, moment-to-moment assent is contigent on whatever authority the game provides. In that way, I disagree with step 2, unless I'm misunderstanding.

Of course, any player without explicit authority can object, or players can explicitly allow events outside the rules of the game, but that's a social issue.

Simon: Of course, any player without explicit authority can object, or players can explicitly allow events outside the rules of the game, but that's a social issue.

Yep! That's all I'm talking about. 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.

(What happens then, whether the game continues seamlessly but changed, or crashes and burns, or anything in between, is up to the group. Lots of groups change their games' rules exactly this way, in the middle of the session, and no harm done, sometimes without even noticing they've done it. Lots of other groups, one hint of this kind of thing and it's recrimination and flames. Theory has to account for the whole range of possible outcomes, of course, and a strongly authority-based theory gags on the former.)

Perhaps if an example were given of what alternatives you propose to "the brute assignment of authority" this would make more sense, but at present I'm not seeing how this is a point worth making.

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.

You sort of acknowledge this when you agree that one players authority may be promoted at the "expense" of anothers, but don't seem to acknowledge that this may be a beneficial outcome.  It is not only the content of play which can carry moment-to-moment assent, but the existence of a formal authority can also gain such consent - even in cases where it is apparently not in the (immediate) interests of another player.

But that is only an apparent conflict, and doesn't seem to account for cases of partial or special knowledge.  Moment-to-moment assent to all acts seems to imply perfect knowledge and perfect consensus on the part of all the participants.  When either perfect knowledge or perfect consensus fail to manifest, the formal authority can keep things on track; and that could, in fact, be the best outcome for all the participants real interests.

cc: Answering to "seems to imply" is a mug's game. If you have questions for me, out with them! I'm always delighted to answer questions.

Otherwise, I'll just let your comments stand as comments. That's fine too.

OK.  Replace "seems to imply" with "absolutely requires".  I was just being polite.

The question is: what is the point?  The argument to moment-to-moment authority doesn't explain anything and obscures several remedies that already exist.

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?

I've been chewing the shit out of this for two weeks now and have come up with only the weirdest of solutions.

I guess the most glaring exception which comes to mind about #1's "in every case" is the increasingly-rare but once-common phenomenon of tournament play modules.

(In short, at some event, say, GenCon, a bunch of teams and a bunch of DM's run through some new module.  The DMs keep track and score how they do, and then the winners get some sort of prize at the end.)

It seems clear to me that with that sort of scenario, even if everyone seated around the table agrees that the disintegration trap is totally unfair and bogus, no one has the pre-agreed authority to edit it, so no one does.

One reason why this matters (it seems to me): moment-to-moment assent is *always*, by definition, about a concrete, in-front-of-us-now issue/event relevant to the actual play currently underway.  Our understanding (as a group or as individuals) of the nuances may be incomplete (do the rules technically allow picking up peaches?  Is it a good idea - for the currently relevant definition of good - to allow the peaches to be picked up?  etc.), but the assent/dissent is clear, specific, and informed by the current instance of play.

Pre-established authorities, while unquestionably useful, can never do that.  Doing the pre-establishment closer and closer to the particular instance of play (crafting authorities specifically for a given game/type of play, or even formal customization by each group prior to play) obviously gets the agreement closer to the moment of play (and thus may - in many cases, I'd say, does - help improve the play).  But if what we're interested in is finding meaning in the specific interactions that are happening *right now*, moment-to-moment assent will always be better informed than pre-established authority.

NOTE:  If you're not interested in having *unexpected/uncertain* meanings emerge from play, maybe pre-existing authority isn't quite so disadvantageous.  But I haven't really thought that through yet; I suspect there's only a subset of the possible meanings of "unexpected/uncertain" for which that might apply.

Hello Vincent,

"They aren't playing the same game anymore, but they're still roleplaying."
I'm kind of thinking you have two bubbles, one is 'roleplay', the other bubble is inside the first and it is the particular game in question. Maybe D&D or whatever. I'm thinking that because you say they can discard one game/not be playing the same game anymore, yet they are still roleplaying/you say they are still within the larger bubble that is roleplay. Even though they discarded the smaller bubble inside it, for another bubble.

I am not trying to challenge what your saying at all, in describing this. I'm just trying to describe the structure of what your saying in more detail. Does it seem to describe what your saying?

Now onto actually challenging the idea (which is not challenging the two bubbles from above) - how exactly are you using the word 'trumps'? Because as I've known it to be used, it means a certain thing (usually a card), via prior agreed authority, trumps another thing. The word 'trumps' relies on prior agreed authority holding up, in itself. Moment to moment assent, because of prior agreed authority, trumps prior agreed authority?

There's also the old comedy routine, where the badguys are playing cards - one says he has a full house, the other says he has a smith and wesson. The others 'assent' and give him all the money. Did moment to moment assent trump prior agreement, or did they just fear for their lives and humour the idea he won?

It seems easy enough to counter your position that moment to moment assent trumps prior agreement - I don't agree it does.

"But you have to agree it does!"

Why? Is there some law of physics involved? As much as I have to agree I can't flap my arms and fly to the moon?
Or is there some prior agreement I'm breaking in not agreeing moment to moment assent trumps prior agreement? If that's the case it's prior agreement coming before my moment to moment assent.

Laws of physics or some prior agreement are the only two things that would compel me to agree moment to moment assent trumps prior agreement. Is there a third factor I don't know of, that aught to compel me to agree? I'm genuinely asking and trying to think of one, but can't see one.

Really I think your working from a larger 'roleplay' bubble and essentially a prior agreed rule of that bubble is that anything that goes on in a smaller bubble inside it(a particular game, like D&D or WOD) is subject to moment to moment assent, regardless of the smaller bubbles prior agreements. I hope I sound constructive in saying that, because I think it's fairly constructive to say.

Callan: "Is there a third factor I don't know of, that aught to compel me to agree? I'm genuinely asking and trying to think of one, but can't see one."

There is! It's easy.

Put it to the test. Next time you roleplay, contradict something the GM says. Just dig in your damn heels and refuse to go along with it, like you are with me. Don't let the game proceed until the GM goes along with you instead. "No, it is not raining, it's a sunny day," for instance. Something that doesn't matter much but is clearly within the GM's authority. Stick to it until you get your way, or until the game breaks up, no compromising. Then come back and tell me what happened. Did the GM's pre-agreed authority defeat your in-the-moment refusal to grant assent?

No, Vincent, I would have destroyed my own ability to give moment to moment assent, in my own judgement. I draw a line on my behaviour, because frankly, often enough, no one else is powerful enough to do so. I can't rely on just waiting to see if other people seem to accept what I do.

If the prior agreement doesn't come out and bitch slap me, then I am mightier and thus right to do what I did? Might makes right? "Prior agreement didn't stop me - thus everythings fine! I don't have to look at myself and judge, just rely on other peoples judgements!"

No, I would have just defaulted to animal, in my judgement. Getting something past other peoples jugements is not enough - it has to get past my own judgement first. Does the lumpley principle include having to get your own agreement, or does it just involve getting the agreement of others?

In terms of theory, I don't know why if someones effectively blind to a form of 'agreement', that isn't also part of the theory. Maybe not a part you want to talk about right now - but you seem to be arguing that it's impossible - that everyone agrees to the sorts of things you agree to. Which is silly - assuming you eat meat, some people don't agree with eating meat. In terms of agreement and theory related intimately with agreement, someone not finding certain things to be agreement IS part of the theory. A part you might just acknowledge and not want to talk about today, fair enough. But it is a part. Or have you decided you disagree that I disagreed that, in game, you agreed!? My my! That's a curly one.

Note: You edited your post, you cheeky boy! I don't have to cut my crap now? >:)

Callan: "If the prior agreement doesn't come out and bitch slap me, then I am mightier and thus right to do what I did?"

I never said right. Just mightier.

It's proper for you to draw a line on your own behavior. I draw much the same line on mine. That doesn't change the fact that ultimately, each of us individually holds the game hostage. The GM's authority depends, not on itself or on the rulebook, but on you. It depends on you holding that line, granting your assent moment by moment, going along with authority, not defying it.

I'm just saying back to you what you said to me! If you can't see it, I'm stumped.

That's not trumping, or even holding hostage, really. Back in the Q & A thread you asked everyone to hold off posting. I had the physical capacity to type on my keyboard and make a post. That wouldn't be me trumping anything. I wouldn't be using some agreement we had to outmanouver you. I'd just be using raw physics.

As I asked in my first post, what do you mean by 'trump', Vincent? Do you mean someone acting based on their raw physical capacity to act? Or acting as agreed they can act? The trump question in the first post was a serious one.

Thanks Vincent!

I think I am catching up with what you mean here.  Very interesting and useful for me.  In relation to your item (3), I think what I wanted to know was roughly:

What's the important difference between 'brute assigning authority' and 'establishing expectations and granting permission to avoid the game breaking down into a series of moment-by-moment negotiations about raw assent'?

Having read what you have said since, I think your 'position' at (3) is something like:

- Some people seem to think that just writing a rule that says 'in situation A, player X decides the fictional content ' is enough by itself (to manage dissent).

- But one can do more with one's rules.  For example, one can and should write rules that help the players develop similar expectations about fictional content (reducing conflict) and allow each of them to feel that its safe for them to try to influence the content in ways that interest them (promoting participation)'

- One way of making it 'safe for players to try to influence the content' is to provide rules that make it quick and easy to resolve potential conflicts.

Have I understood, roughly?

Then, in expanding on (3) for me and Frank later, you said:

If two players' interests come into conflict, you can resolve the conflict by promoting one player's interests over the other's - by assigning authority to one player at the other's expense - or else you can resolve the conflict by reconciling the players' interests so that they go forward in alignment - in which case there's no need to assign authority.

a) An example of 'resolve the conflict by promoting one player's interests over the other's' might be a conflict rule that says 'both parties to the conflict roll a die, and the higher scorer gets to narrate the result'?

(i.e. there is a mechanism for assigning control of the fiction, but it always generates a 'winner' and a 'loser').

b) And your examples in the next thread are of methods for 'reconciling the players' interests'?

(i.e. the mechanism for assigning control of the fiction is essentially a positive sum bidding process, which gives more chance of both players being satisfied).

Your examples in the next thread look like mechanisms where the player who yields control of the fiction on a particular occasion is compensated with a resource/ currency that he or she can use to control of the fiction on later occasions.  Is this right?

Very interested to canvass what other general methods for 'reconciling the players' interests' there might be?

Cheers

Bwian

Guh! Callan, is it seriously the word "Trump" that's impeding understanding? Even after all this clarification and explanation and example that clearly demonstrates what Vincent means by it? These exchanges are getting wearying to read when the conversation could be so much more enlightening if we just moved past it. So I'll make it easy for you: He means the first thing. Of COURSE he means the first thing. Everything he's written on the subject has been baldly about the first thing, the "acting based on raw capacity" one. Cornering Vincent based on the use of the word "trump" isn't advancing the conversation. he's using it causally, the way folks use it ALL THE TIME, not using it in the sense of a game mechanic or anything. Clear? Kapeesh? If you don't believe me Vincent will come along in the morning and confirm it anyway.

It's really, really hard to read you as posting in good faith, at this point. Maybe it's not my place to step in as third party, but I wanted to point out that this niggling over chop-logic is really dragging down a conversation that I'm interested in.

Peace,
-Joel

Vincent, I'd love to know why you are so interested in people breaking the rules and/or behaving like arseholes - not saying I'm not interested. It's as if we were reading about soccer theory and discussing what happens if Biggins Minor keeps picking the ball up instead of kicking it. Yes, if we all agreed to pick the ball up, we'd still be playing a ball game, but we wouldn't be playing soccer. All games require the consent of all participants to follow the rules, or break them, or they don't work. That's true in chess or roleplaying. With roleplaying there is more scope to break the rules by mutual consent, even unspoken consent, I suppose.

Simon: Yes! Good question.

What I'm really interested in isn't assholes breaking rules, but how vulnerable - how absolutely vulnerable - rules are to players.

Designing a roleplaying game means more than designing rules that we can all agree to play by, and that are playable. It means designing rules that capture us - rules that become a vital part of our experience of play.

I have no advertising budget! To succeed, my games have to give people experiences they can't get anywhere else, and they have to create in people enough excitement that they talk about it. To do that, my rules have to be a lot more than just playable.

Related:

Read Marco up at the top of this thread: assholes breaking rules is one example, but house rules and fudging and selective rules-use and so on - the roots of design - are all possible because of the same principle.

Also these of mine, from long ago:

Funny, I was just reading a post about someone drifting the rules of my game to enjoy it more. In terms of your thing about "an experience you can't get anywhere else," I got lucky that a lot of people drifted the hell out of it and still called what they were doing Primetime Adventures.

Matt, that's interesting and useful. There's lots to learn from that, I think.

edit: Oh, you must mean Christian's. That's also interesting.

Do you figure that much of your game's success comes from people talking up a freeformed PTA? I wouldn't have guessed that.

Bwian: Right on. Let's continue in the next thread.

Joel: No need for that. If you don't want to read Callan's posts, don't! If you feel like he's holding back the conversation at large, the best thing to do is to ask me questions or make comments yourself that will move it forward. Be the change, and all; I'll be thrilled to move forward with you.

Callan: Joel's right.

Every time I've ever played PTA I played it wrong. Next time I want to play it right to see if my feeling on it changes.

Vx: I think the success in part comes from people being comfortable drifting it in a lot of different ways and still retaining a few core bits they really like.

Vincent,
Looking back at my original question in the other thread
"The group in the smelly chamberlain examples appeared to be cheating/going back on their agreement."
Is this thread addressing where only some of the group decide to abandon prior agreement (as in the smelly chamberlain examples, where the players decide to, but the GM isn't in on that), or is this thread addressing where the whole, entire group, together, decides to give up on their prior agreement? I'm totally fine with the latter. But my question isn't about the latter? Though in that first post I did put it poorly - I said the group, as if together, cheated. I meant only part of the group decided to. Maybe I stuffed this up from that point.

Anyway, all my posts were responding as if this thread were about part of a group abandoning prior agreement, while another part of the group hasn't and is unaware that's happened. If it seems bonkers like I'm arguing the latter case, that's why. Like I said previously "asking this in case its interesting to answer".

Vincent:
Designing a roleplaying game means more than designing rules that we can all agree to play by, and that are playable. It means designing rules that capture us - rules that become a vital part of our experience of play.

This is wonderful, thank you.

Hi,

just a short note: I'm stll following this and I can mostly agree with your points, although I would probably phrase them differently (with all that entails).

I agree much less to the points made in Mr. Edwards post, to which you linked, but that is tangiential here.

Vincent: You're right, you're right. I think a large part of my growing frustration is that the signal to noise ratio (not JUST in this conversation, and not just Callan, hell, not just this blog) often takes up so much of my bandwidth to process and sift through, that i lack the brainpower to make my own proactive contributions.

But! I'll try, 'cuz you're right. So, it strikes me that, after recognizing the principle—ongoing consent trumps prior agreement—the next step is figuring out how to accommodate that in specific cases—whether by rules, social conventions, or whatever. So for instance, in Dogs it says "GM, always defer to the pickiest player." But it took me a lot of discussion (with you, and others) to figure out how to apply that in play. The versions in my head sounded icky: "GM, back up whoever bitches loudly," or "GM, call out the player by asking everyone else if it's good enough." The functional way of doing it, however, turns out to be "Watch for whoever's scowling or fidgeting or scratching their head or making little Kif Kroker groans, then ask the narrating player to explain more, until the Raise or whatever is satisfying/makes sense."

I guess what I'm saying is, I woulda never figured that out without someone saying. In fact, I had never figured out functional methods at ALL for addressing unsatisfying input at the table. Sure, a straight-up "that doesn't make sense to me," might work once in awhile, but "hmm, tell me more" is a lot less confrontational. So, cool! I know have a great tool in my box for Dogs or ANY game.

I feel like we need to explore these concepts more, in game design and in play culture. The "Resolving Player Conflicts by Reconciling Their Interests" thread above is another good technique for a specific issue. These things shouldn't be marginal or hidden techniques that you only discover by asking just the right question in just the right context of just the right person; these should be CENTRAL concepts to design and play as a whole.

Or maybe not. Maybe understanding like this IS of necessity individual and hard-won. I guess I'm just wishing there was a way to bring the tablets down from the mountain without draining the concepts of their life and vitality. Ascending the mountain over and over again is hard work!

Peace,
-Joel

Vincent, you're moving into a very general field, the foundations of social systems! Now that's not a minefield warning or anything, instead a suggestion of stuff you can look at if you want to help explain this. Here's my take:

Any social structure is made of people with choice, and we can blow up all kinds of social structures if we want to. Now why don't we? Well we can tie existing structures together, so we say that if you break the rules of one then people will not cooperate with you in the other. Classic structures being the club of "trustworthy people" or "gentlemen" or "oath-keepers". Do you get the idea? We could say that if someone cheats at cards they are "an untrustworthy fellow" and not do business deals with them.

So in bygone days if Callan takes your advice and refuses point blank to play an rpg under the agreed rules, then word could spread that he is "of intemperate and intransigent character" which would discourage people from working with him. You'd also likely be called "a corrupter of honest men"!

But that doesn't cover it of course! Because as long as you tie back to existing structures, there must be one structure that stands on it's own feet. And if one stands on it's own feet, why can't many? (Looks like the oldschool language has rubbed off!)

So if we ignore the paradigm of "the agreements of trustworthy men", it can only be that cooperating in a game by the agreed rules is better than any other form of interaction the participants can think of.

In other words, people will play by the rules if the rules are more fun than being an asshole, but may play by different rules if they are more fun than both. People will not play the Chamberlain trick if letting the GM decide that is more fun. In other words, authority for deciding elements of game fiction can be protected if not only the things the GM produces are better, but simply having the ideas come from the GMs head is better. Only some preference on the level of principle (like Paul's one) will protect it in general, any specific things value will only protect it that once.

Naturally these two things can fight it out, with "this is a good idea" on one side vs "it's good to listen to him" on the other. The more you value the input of a person for their own good, or for intermediary reasons like "I bet it's part of a good plan", or "I can't do his job and mine well simultaneously" the more persistent your authority structures will be.
You can replace this with getting all the players to swear an oath, but really, rpgs are usually too uncertain an activity for that serious a commitment (it's not precisely clear what you will be agreeing to), and we are not from the past! Of course the final choice is just to go back on your agreements anyway and be happy about it, but that's another story!

Another reason (or at least another way of saying) why I find this assent/authority stuff interesting and important is that I think the "trumping" happens *a lot*.  Not always (or even often) in problematic ways, mind, but still - a LOT.  It happens when we don't realize a pre-existing agreement should have been applied.  It happens because the pre-existing agreements don't quite cover the current situation.  And multiple pre-existing agreements can have various degrees and flavors of contradictory interaction.  And . . . probably more.

Pointing at the primacy of moment-to-moment assent isn't saying "this is where the problem is", it's saying "this is where the magic happens."  To work most effectively with the magic, it helps to be looking at that place.

What Gordon said!

[i]This is where I've lost you, right?[/i]

Not as such, because thats far too loaded an argument for me to take seriously.  Who would be against subtle and clever assignment of authority rather than crude?  Is it the same people who are against motherhood and apple pie?  The allegation that there are "many" designers who think that "crude" assignment of authority is a Good Thing seems to reek of straw men.

I'm not seeing anything in the argument to ongoing agreement trumping prior agreement that shouldn't be correctly described as a basic social contract breakdown.  The agreed assignment of authority - whether or crude or clever - has come under strain.

Reading your "alignment of player interests" posts has not clarified matters.  I think that by the time, for example, a dispute over whether one players character can be wounded by another hes been elevated to an actual conflict of interest you are already in social contract difficulties.  I would instead see that sort of thing, in a functional game, as a conflict of mild preference, at best.

I'm also not sure that these examples show anything novel in terms of authority assignment.  Whichever decision is being made, the party with authority to declare fictional content is pretty clear, and does not appear to be under moment to moment negotiation.

cc: "I'm not seeing anything in the argument to ongoing agreement trumping prior agreement that shouldn't be correctly described as a basic social contract breakdown."

Then you didn't follow my comment at 23. Sometimes I expect little graphics to communicate effectively and they don't.

It sure would help me if you'd ask questions. That's why you're here, right? Because you want to know what I think about things?

It means designing rules that capture us - rules that become a vital part of our experience of play.

I've been thinking a lot about this- about the fact that rules can't just "do the job", they have to be an additional voice at the table- giving meaningful and useful input into the fiction.  To justify their use, otherwise they evaporate from play (as you said from get go of this conversation, months back).

What I'm really interested in isn't assholes breaking rules, but how vulnerable - how absolutely vulnerable - rules are to players.

For whatever it's worth, it's people that (can make themselves) absolutely vulnerable to other people - it's not rules that are vulnerable to other people. The smelly chamberlain shows a person (called the GM) making himself vulnerable to other people/players by trusting they will follow a certain procedure.

Rules don't exist to be vulnerable.

The only thing that is vulnerable is the person who follows a rule.

cc, sometimes people are seriously passionate about "preserving" their character, my brother does it all the time: He's so invested in them within their context that he can't just copy and paste them out of the SIS if the game goes the wrong way, like another friend of mine does. He's just that invested in what is going on right now, even if a portion of his investment is fear of loss. So for him injury to a character is a big thing, and mechanics alike hitpoints are a means of protecting that character from negative change.

If you can deal with those people, you're onto a winner, because the mild preference brigade will for the first time be able to play with them!

On the last paragraph, dead right, authority is made irrelevant because everyone is in agreement or close to it, so someone can actually suggest stuff that is not "their job" and no body minds, the point is the authority issue dissolves.

Course, "creative intent" is not the whole story; there are many players for whom the advantage of lone authority over their character (and a turn structure that requires answers about their character), is that it puts them on the spot creatively, and makes a place where only they can answer. Carving out regions for challenge, even creative challenge, is an important part of setting up differing authority. I remember two friends playing chess and getting pissed off that I was mentioning what they could do, because they wanted the challenge, they wanted the hotseat. I've seen authority work that way in games too, towards the cause of spotlight time and decision making space.

Callan, that's sort of poetic. I can understand the sense of betrayal that some people can have when people start playing about like that; thank God people are forgiving. But for the sake of completeness, a rule can be vulnerable; a rule in action is different to a rule on paper, because the former is a way people coordinate themselves, and the latter is a description of a potential way of doing that, so when a rule structure stops being practised because it is overwhelmed by other forms of behaviour, yep, it was vulnerable. If you embrace that idea, you can look at why "drift" happens, or why we design new games, or indeed why we renegotiate contracts. Because the rules aren't the objective, they are the means to human purposes.

Then you didn't follow my comment at 23. Sometimes I expect little graphics to communicate effectively and they don't.

Oh I followed it.  I've had much the same experience, but its culmination was a new set of rules, not an absence of rules resolved by ad hoc agreements.  And that seems to be a normal process, as we see from the frequency of "house rules".

It sure would help me if you'd ask questions.

It would help me if you answered the questions I have already asked.

That's why you're here, right? Because you want to know what I think about things?

Is it?  Is my only function to sit at your knee and receive your dispensed wisdom?

[edited to close italics - VB]

Hello Josh, thanks for the compliment!
when a rule structure stops being practised because it is overwhelmed by other forms of behaviour, yep, it was vulnerable
Was 'the' rule structure vulnerable or were the people who practiced it, vulnerable?

Vincent, Also I'd repeat CC's last question, but perhaps a little less bluntly - is this forum about scrutinising theory and discarding it if it's wrong, including if your own theory is wrong? Or is this forum about you teaching theory without scrutiny (which is similar to what is done in most school class rooms around the world, so I'm not knocking it)? If it's the latter, my own approach here atleast, is entirely missplaced, I'll totally grant.

Josh,

Sure, I don't dispute that people can be so invested in their character, but it is not outside what I was discussing either.  Is he so determined to preserve the character that he would rather not play at all?  Because if not, he is accepting the possibility, however much he may strive against it, than quite according to the rules his character may become injured.  And if he really is that insistent on preventing all damage to the character, I'm not sure why something like the proposed "take fallout" alternative would be welcomed by him.  It seems to me either he is willing to accept the social contract principle that the actions of others may impose on him, or he is not.  Either way, its not specifically a problem with the apportionment of authority IMO.

Secondly, it doesn't make sense to me to say that because apportionment of authority has succeeded in not ruffling any feathers it has therefore become irrelevent.  Not at all, it is relevant precisely because it succeeded.  The authority issue doesn't dissolve, it merely ceases to be contested.  Which is Good!  Like any well engineered machine, if it is working smoothly you do not tend to notice its operation.  The doesn't mean the device can therefore be disposed of.

cc, Callan: Are you guys for real? This is my blog, not a theory forum. If you want a theory forum, go find one or make one, somewhere else. It's not my responsibility to provide one for you.

If you want to read posts about theory (and other things) by me, and find out what I think, this is the place.

If you're going to keep participating here, I expect you to do so on my terms and to my standards. If you don't like them, or if you don't find them useful, no hard feelings! See you around.

So hey, as a note to my group "drifting" PTA—we're not actually abandoning or changing the rules.  We're leaning more on some rules at the expense of others.  That is, we're using the conflict resolution rules fewer times and rely on the other effects of Screen Presences, Issues, and Scene Framing more. I haven't made that point very clearly, but I think that we (or maybe just I) have put so much emphasis on resolution mechanics in the past few years, while there are so many structuring mechanics that can be equally as important (like the aforementioned in PTA, or Futures in Ribbon Drive).

In other words, a game that doesn't have a task or conflict resolution mechanic isn't necessarily just freeforming. Don't you think?

So, assigned authority is sort of like treating the symptoms instead of the disease? And aligning player interests goes right to treating the disease itself? I can definitely agree with that. Moment-to-moment assent (or lack of) being the base principle that social situations revolve around, I guess it only makes sense to design a spoonful of sugar into a roleplaying game to help the medicine go down.

Vincent, do you perceive the same need for games that are designed to be more competitive than cooperative in nature? I'm sort of thinking not, at least not at the same level or for entirely the same reasons.

Oh, it also occurs to me that sex is a perfect example of this principle. And it can even include roleplaying!

This has me thinking about BDSM and safe words. There's something to be mined from there but I'm too tired to put the pieces together right now. Oh well.

Christian: Oh man, that's really interesting. I do agree with you. I haven't been thinking much about non-resolution mechanisms, even though you're right, they're obviously equally important.

More to come about that, I think.

C. Edwards: At 46, yep. I think that even competitive roleplaying games have to be based on an underlying collaboration. Maybe it's even more important - competitive games might be even more likely to break down into assent-wrangling if the rules aren't good.

cc, Callan: Are you guys for real? This is my blog, not a theory forum.

Quite.  And thats why I am not remotely anything like a regular, and would not be here it all were not conversations leaking over into other places.

If "what you think" is so tenuous as to recquire the outright rejection of disagreement rather than being defensible, then just stick a big banner at the top indicating that only contributions in the form of fawning praise will be welcome.

cc: Sure.

So far, you haven't managed to disagree with me in a way that I can effectively engage with. If you want to keep trying, I can help, but that'll mean you sucking it up and putting question marks at the ends of your questions so that I can tell what they are.

You're also going to have to lose the sarcasm. I'm not sarcastic with you; please do me the courtesy.

Please don't comment here again, except to confirm that you want to keep trying and you're willing to work with me on it. We can go forward from there or not at all.

Thanks!

I'm not sure what it is that you think I must keep "trying" at.  Nor do I particularly see why you think I am in need of "help".  You may not be sarcastic toward me, but I am not patronising toward you.  Of course I am willing to "work with you", otherwise I would not have bothered posting at all, and would simply have dismissed your proposition as poorly thought out and ignored it.

I have provided you with a clearly indicated question at post #10, which has not so far been answered.  Do you want me to repeat it?

I don't really buy this idea that disagreement has to be phrased as a question anyway.  I can say "I think you have made a mistake", or I could ask "You've made a mistake haven't you?" but I don't see what value this adds.  But
whatever - the question is still there and still awaits an answer.

cc: Ha ha ha! You really had me going there.

"I'm not sure what it is that you think I must keep 'trying' at. Nor do I particularly see why you think I am in need of 'help'."

Oh my god you should have seen me. I was in a genuine rage until I realized that you were putting me on.

So, cool. My answer to your question in post #10 is in post #11. I'm sure you saw it, because you responded to it in post #36. Post #36 is a pretty crappy response - it's a bar to future conversation, not any kind of step forward, because it puts me in the position of having to correct you before I can answer you further - but because you had me going I'll undertake it.

Not tonight! Tomorrow. But, like, be prepared - I really am going to have to correct you before I answer you, and it may take several back-and-forths between us to really get to it.

cc: Here's you from post #36:

"[i]This is where I've lost you, right?[/i]

Not as such, because thats far too loaded an argument for me to take seriously. Who would be against subtle and clever assignment of authority rather than crude? Is it the same people who are against motherhood and apple pie? The allegation that there are "many" designers who think that "crude" assignment of authority is a Good Thing seems to reek of straw men."

You've misunderstood.

I'm not arguing for a subtle and clever assignment of authority. I'm arguing that assigning authority is itself a brute solution to the problem. I'm arguing for a more subtle and clever solution to the problem than assigning authority.

I'm alleging - well, no, I said it outright, so - I'm claiming that some designers think that assigning authority is a good solution to the problem. I disagree with them (if they exist): I say that assigning authority is a brute solution to the problem, suitable only when you don't really care about the results. Better solutions exist and if you're designing a game you should look for one.

Now, hold that in mind, and: of course a game will assign authority. Duh. But a game will also grant permissions, and set expectations, and make demands, and offer opportunities, and impose constraints, and draw out contributions, and so on. If, as a designer, you think that all of those boil down to assign authority, then your design's going to suffer for it. You'll assign authority when you should be making a demand; you'll assign authority when you should be offering an opportunity; you'll assign authority when you should be granting permission.

Some designers think (I claim) that in roleplaying, authority is fundamental, so assigning authority is fundamental to design. Nope! In roleplaying, assent is fundamental, so soliciting assent is fundamental to design. Assigning authority is just one way of many to go about soliciting assent.

So, cc: do you have any questions about any of that, or does it all seem clear to you? Like I say, I expect this to take several back-and-forths, so for just right now, please hold off on telling me whether you agree with it or not. I just want to know if it's all clear, and of course I'm happy to answer your questions.

CC@43, Well it's sort of a paradox; he's stuck either way. He probably would pull the character out and replace him with a new one, one he is less invested in, but that would also defy the character! I vastly prefer fallout to endure duress, because fallout still allows the player to take ownership of what happens to his character, as well as giving them grounds to see it as a good thing. I think that difference is closer to what you suggest about authority; the fallout system works partially because it requires the input of the player controlling the character, and partially because it encourages a player to engage with what is being done. Poison'd seems to do focus on the latter more than the first, although it's mechanism for doing that mostly misses me; I'm just not a "black freighter" kind of guy.

Another way to put it might be this; people will except a social contract principle like the one you suggest more readily if they agree with the parameters within which that influence will fall, and that can be tuned carefully to make interactions pretty positive. So far so agreeing I'm sure. Secondly they will be even more likely to agree to it if they consider that input to be of value to them, because a person "gets" their character or because it acts as useful inspiration. People accept character creation restrictions for much the same reason. We probably agree here as well, hopefully.

I've rewritten traits for friends even though that's so not my job, just because people liked the succinct way I phrased them. And in freeform imaginative chatting, I've over-ruled something someone else has said by coming up with something they like better. We approached both situations the same, but in the first situation an explicit authority thing was lurking underneath, in case someone tried to take over the imaginative conversation in a way that people actually didn't like better. A good authority system for cooperative play passes the buck over to valuing each others contributions and gets out of everyone's way, wouldn't it be awesome if we could make that step happen faster!

Yes, Vincent, what you are saying is indeed clear, and I believe I understood it the first time as well.

It baffles me that you think I was "putting you on", but whatever.

@Josh, I agree entirely with your post.

cc: "Yes, Vincent, what you are saying is indeed clear, and I believe I understood it the first time as well."

That worries me, since your response at post #36 showed that you didn't understand it the first time, as I've pointed out. But okay, and here's hoping.

Here are my assertions:

1. Some roleplaying game designers hold that authority is fundamental to roleplaying and assigning authority is fundamental to roleplaying game design.

But no...
2. Assent, granted or withheld, is fundamental to roleplaying. Authority is secondary.

Therefore...
3. Soliciting assent is fundamental to roleplaying game design. Assigning authority is secondary, one way of many to solicit assent.

Furthermore...
4. Assigning authority is a brute way to solicit assent, unsuitable to many of the precise circumstances in which a roleplaying game design needs to solicit assent.

Now, for each of those 1-4, do you agree with me or disagree with me? Don't tell me why, yet. Just agree or disagree.

Oh, and also:

"It baffles me that you think I was 'putting you on', but whatever."

Worst news of my day. :-(

1: agree

2: disagree

3: is dependent on 2, therefore I disagree

4: is dependent on 2, therefore I disagree

(But with 4, I think that much of what you mean is correct, even if what you say is incorrect.)

Cool, cc. Thanks.

"(But with 4, I think that much of what you mean is correct, even if what you say is incorrect.)"

We can get back into #2 later if you want, but this is WAY more interesting.

What do you mean? Tell me what I mean that's correct, and what I say that's incorrect?

I think when you talk about making demands, offering opportunities etc., that is valid.  But I do not see that as being other than: authorised to make demands, authorised to offer oportunities.  To say "you have authority for this particular purpose" is indeed more useful than just saying you have authority, but it's not a different thing.

Vincent here's something that may sound random but may be relevant: For economists, everything is economics, and for those who understand roleplaying based on authority, a lot of what you suggest as an alternative to authority may be considered as an example of it! In other words you could imagine it as their definition of authority expanding to swallow up almost all the tools in the box. For myself, what you call "grant permissions" and "impose constraints" are at first glance to me authority issues. Now either I have an impoverished view of game design, or "authority issues" is just a bigger category in my mind. Authority in my mind is what is considered flexible/up for debate/alterable and who can be a part of that decision. It's who has the vetoes and who gets to decide what details, whether you have free reign to make things up or whether you have to ask people what their reactions are, or stick by something already said, that kind of thing. It can be dry and mechanical but hopefully it is mixed into something interesting instead, justified by the concept and "voice" of the game etc.

So what gems have I missed out from those concepts? Is there something important I've lost?

And if I dare wade into your disagreement/misunderstanding with cc, if "subtle authority assignment" doesn't exist for you, then perhaps you and him are actually defending similar solutions under different names!

Having said that, cc I feel that "making demands" and "offering opportunities" fit into a different category: In a sense restrictions and inspiration should always be distinguished, although one can become the other; if you suggest a course of action, or demand it is followed, then you set a centre-line for the course people can follow. Although setting out walls should do the same thing (define a path) people somehow cannot always interpolate between the two, and work out what they are supposed to be doing. Instead they but around at one wall or another, behaving in a borderline disfunctional way. "It's not this but maybe it's something near it" Giving only authority limits and not advice to make that position work is like giving a new politician nothing but a list of corrupt activities he cannot be part of. It's too easy to just use the list as inspiration instead of warning! So as you say, they do relate to authority, but done well they functionalise authority rather than making it a chore, so specifically it's not "authorised to make demands" but "under a command to use authority like this", or "offered the opportunities to use authority like this or this". I'd call designing that stuff creating player roles that are fun in themselves and interface coherently, or (in more ordinary language!) just work together.

Josh, that's where my thought process has been going this whole thread too.

I think Vincent, that what you've really done is create an alternate formulation for folks who feel abit uncomfortable with the notion of "authority" and its connotations of kow towing to The Man.

For folks whom are happy to assume authority and exercise it guilt free...everything you've said sounds exactly like a more complicated way of saying who has authority...nor more subtle or clever...just bog standard authority assigning with the serial numbers filed off so you don't actually have to use the word Authority.

I dunno, Ralph. Maybe it's the difference between the explicit authority as denoted by the rules text (the authority DESIGNED into play) and the unarguable, over riding, and implicit authority of player assent?

Basically, not all authority is equal, and we ignore that at our peril... or something.

No, there's something different going on here. It's possible to have rules, or things very much like rules, which don't distribute authority. Polaris is full of this, I know, and Dogs in the Vineyard is as well.

I'd dig up example sentences from Polaris (which I have on hand) but I'm dead tired right now.

yrs—
—Ben

cc, Ralph: Dang. Let's say that one particular subsystem in a game draws contributions out of the group (including the GM). I say "the rules draw contributions out of the group." You guys can say "the rules assign authority to the group to have contributions drawn out of them" if you want. I have no idea what you're talking about, but if that's what gets you through, it's no skin off my nose.

I'm perfectly happy with assigning authority, when assigning authority is in fact the solution to the problem. My games are throughout with authority assignments, as you know; all well-designed games are. But assigning authority isn't all my games do. They also draw contributions out of the group, and offer the group opportunities, and set expectations for the group, and provide constraints for the group, and so on. ("The rules assign authority to the group to abide by the constraints the rules provide," you'd say? Give me mercy.)

All in service to this:

Designing a roleplaying game means more than designing rules that we can all agree to play by, and that are playable. It means designing rules that capture us - rules that become a vital part of our experience of play.

Ralph: We're playing Universalis and Sebastian creates a character who is a young snake, and Sebastian gives this character "brave," worth 2. From that point, we're all invested in the young snake's bravery, right? Nobody needs to hold authority over it; nobody needs to use a veto stick or an it's-my-turn-to-talk stick to make the young snake act bravely. Instead of assigning authority there, the rules buy us in.

There IS an it's-my-turn-to-talk stick in the game, obviously, and I have no beef with that. That's the right solution for what it's for. It's NOT the right solution for making sure that the young snake acts bravely, is all.

...Which is, of course, why you didn't use that solution there.

Just like my games and all well-designed games, Universalis is all throughout with authority assignments, but assigning authority isn't all it does.

re "drawing contributions", I am not clear on what you mean here.  I can think of a few things you might mean, but either way, discussing that as either authority or assent is not clarifying it.  But, in the case of contributions of this nature, the players would not be authorised to have contributions drawn from them, they would be authorised to make them, surely.

Riffing on your example of Sebastian and his "brave" trait, many games have rules that might require a character to run away, or freeze up and be unable to act.  Under normal circumstances, a GM/player saying to another that "your character runs away" would be a pretty severe imposition; the special rules about fear abilities grant the specific authority to make that such a statement.  And Sebastian's player, by virtue of the bought-and-paid-for trait, has acquired the authority to say "but not me".

The provisional glossary gives Authority as "The privilege given to a person, process, or written material to establish anything into the Shared Imaginary Space."  So I don't think that this applies only to vetoes and talking sticks, it is quite possible for a rule to bestow authority to make certain changes to the IS, in the way that "you all run/no I don't, I'm Brave" does.

In your "reconciling player interests" post, you provide 3 statements about "what happens to Vincents character", and then say that authority was not assigned because everyone assents.  But it seems to me, in each case authority absolutely was assigned: first to the the GM, then to J, then to Vincent.  Whether or not their interests are aligned is essentially irrelevant, because what required authority was the change to the IS made by that statement - Vincents characters arm is now snapped, and that is a now True thing in the IS.  If the speaker, whichever of them it might be, had not held authority over the IS when they spoke, that statement would not be True.

In this example, you present authority as governing interactions between the players, and therefore feel that authority was not present because their interests were aligned.  I think authority governs the IS rather than the players, and so it definitely was present in order to make any of those statements true in the IS.  The fact that their interests were aligned is certainly virtuous, but that does not obviate the presence and exercise of authority over the IS.

cc: The Universalis example is quite particular. If you're not familiar with that game, it won't help.

In the Poison'd example, the rules don't assign that authority to anyone. Or they assign it to whoever speaks up first, and I guess they assign everyone else the authority to contribute too. Anyone can say that my character's arm snaps, and anyone can add that my character's eyebrow's split open, and there doesn't need to be any assignment of authority because we all agree and we're all equal.

So: I'm not saying that authority is absent from the example. I'm saying that it's an example where assigning authority to one player or another isn't the solution to the problem. The rules solve the problem, THEN assign authority to just oh, whomever.

Also worth pointing out that Ron's one of those designers who I'd say overemphasize assigning authority, and the provisional glossary reflects that. I don't believe in any privilege given to anyone or anything to establish things in the Shared Imagined Space. All establishment of things in the Shared Imagined Space is post-hoc and by the assent of all, not by privelege of authority.

The buck that stops is not the true buck.

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.

Oh right, the Glossary.

1. It's called "Provisional" for a reason, damn it.

2. The word "privilege" got up your butt, I think. Here it's probably best revised to "responsibility." I've been revising the word "authority" as "responsibility" in the forum discussions for some time now.

3. "Given" means genuinely and in the moment during play. The passage does not say "pre-assigned."

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!

Ralph: We're playing Universalis and Sebastian creates a character who is a young snake, and Sebastian gives this character "brave," worth 2. From that point, we're all invested in the young snake's bravery, right? Nobody needs to hold authority over it; nobody needs to use a veto stick or an it's-my-turn-to-talk stick to make the young snake act bravely. Instead of assigning authority there, the rules buy us in.

—————-

I don't know V.  That all looks like authority to me.

1) Sebastian had the authority to create a snake.  So Sebastian created a snake by spending Coins

2) Sebastian had the authority to buy a Trait for the snake because he currently controlled the snake by way of having created it.  So he bought "Brave" by spending a Coin.

3) Later on whoever else is controlling the snake is doing so because they had authority to re-introduce the snake or take it over and they did so by spending Coins.

4) However, they are not granted the authority by those Coins to depict the snake acting contrary to its established Traits.  The established Trait says "Brave" so they are not authorized to play the snake as not being Brave.  They purchased the authority to play the snake (#3) but their authority to do so stops at the established Traits.

5) If they wish to add new traits they have the authority to do so only if they spend Coins.

6) If they wish to portray the snake as not being brave they'll have to first remove the Brave Trait.  They have the authority to do so only if they spend Coins, and only if they currently control the snake or have won a Complication where the snake's bravery could be challenged.

7) If they try to play the snake as not Brave without having paid to remove the Trait then any other player has authority to Challenge them on it by spending Coins.

I would argue that everything in Universalis boils down to purchasing the authority to take action with Coins.  If you don't spend the Coin, you don't have the authority, if you do you do.

I would also argue that the only difference between Universalis and any other RPG in that regard is that Universalis actually calls attention to the currency of authority by making it an explicit in game resource you can actually count and measure...whereas in other RPGs (indeed life in general) the Coins we spend to purchase our authority are mostly intangible, often subtle, and usually geared towards allowing us to pretend that we are "collaborating" when really what we are doing is using our social Coins to purchase authority.

What you call moment to moment assent I see as moment to moment granting of authority.

Authority derives from assent...just as the authority of any government derives from the assent of the people to be governed.

But Authority also informs assent by establishing the default or "abstain" result.

To me its a circle.  The idea that assent exists without authority is as bizarre to me as the idea that authority exists without assent.

Alright.

It seems implausible to me that "the rules" of poison'd do not assign authority, in the general sense.  Certainly, the specific rules operational at that moment do not, but surely at some point the rules must have established that such authority is shared overall.  This seems to me analogous to the way the classic GM model has its authority assigned up front too.  That universality of authority over the IS has to be established up front else the players cannot agree to it.

I don't think "assignment of authority" implies that this assignment is "to one player"; there are quite a few GM-full games that have employed quite dispersed forms of authority.  So, I don't see that such dispersal implies some act that is not appropriately described as an assignment of authority.  Also, you say that you do not feel that assigning authority to one player solves the problem, but it is not clear to me that there is a problem, or what that probelm is meant to be.

A dispute over the PG definition of authority complicates things greatly, because if we cannot use the term with a shared meaning we are speaking past each other.  Certainly, I have only used in the sense of "empowered to alter the SIS"; that is a much narrower concept than any discussion about the way in which authority might be used to impose a solution on someone against their will or similar issues, which seem to me to be social contract concerns.

I think therefore it would be useful to separate these issues into two discussions; one being your proposition that authority should be seen as "post-hoc and by assent", and another which addresses techniques and rule structures for resolving or obviating differing desires about what statements should be allowed to enter the IS.

Lots to keep up with at the end of my workday! Thus quick replies only.

Ron: With you.

Josh: That all makes sense to me.

Ralph, cc: Say it with me! All well-designed games assign authority. You're both going on as though I'm arguing that they don't.

(Maybe all poorly-designed games do too, but who cares about them.)

Ralph: I cheerfully accept your correction about Universalis.

cc: "I think therefore it would be useful to separate these issues into two discussions; one being your proposition that authority should be seen as 'post-hoc and by assent', and another which addresses techniques and rule structures for resolving or obviating differing desires about what statements should be allowed to enter the IS."

Aha, yep. Right on.

I thought at the beginning that I understood what Vincent was saying, but after all the later posts I am not really so sure anymore. Maybe it's because I don't know Universalis e can't make Poison'd work, so i have some difficulties in following the examples...

Talking about a game that I know better, Primetime Adventures...  the game assign precise responsibilities/authorities to the players in scene framing and narration.  But this is not enough to make the game "work".  Talking about "setting expectations and granting permission" in PTA, some example could be that, by writing an issue on your character sheet, you simplicity give permission to the GM to attack, push and prod your character though that issue, and have the expectation that he will do so?

Or are you talking about something different?

Sorry. "implicitly" give permission, not "simplicity", I should learn to check my posts before submitting them...

Vincent, If I were to reformulate your item #1 above as:

"Moment to moment granting or confirmation of authority trumps pre-agreed authority in every case"

would we be saying the same thing?

Ralph - the reason I like the use of assent rather than authority to describe the what's-happening-now of roleplaying is that it better conveys the constant, often unexamined, and persistently interactive nature of the process.  A sufficiently sophisticated understanding of authority may be in some ways a more accurate description, but that's not the understanding of authority I usually run into.

I think that you'd agree that while Universalis creates a (VERY helpful) currency for authority/assent-in-the-moment (and also, importantly, ongoingly), it isn't (and NOTHING can be) the only tool a group will use to negotiate that authority/assent.  If I'm less than enthusiatic when Sebastian buys "Brave", he may - in an entirely nonconfrontational, unproblematic, good-for-the-game way - change his mind about how high he buys it, or even if he buys it at all.  The fact that he has the authority to do so anyway is trumped by - what?

It's entirely accurate to say "by another of the many, social authorities available in any human interaction", but to me, assent implies that mutiplicity of influences, while authority conveys a singular answer that can often distract from the other important, powerfull and fruitful-to-rewarding-play influences.

I take Vincent's point to be "designers, what you should be caring about is the whole of that in-the-moment interaction, not just particular authority-shaped chunks of it."  (Vincent. is that close?).  Now, if you already understand authority to include the whole process, you're golden.  You know that any particular set of authority-chunks, no matter how well-designed, won't add up to the whole.

Labeling the whole as assent and authority as one tool for managing it seems useful to me.  And not because The Man smacked me with his big, um, Authoritahy.

You can probably get all semanticalized and say everything's about authority, but I think how you choose the words affects what you focus on. Do you want your game design to be about who has the right to speak, or about who's happy with what's happening?

To me, focusing on authority is like "I claim India for England." Doesn't ensure that your audience is with you.

Whereas I see assent like, "what you just said about us all having sex, I'm totally down with that."

I like assent, and I like authority. My preference authorises me to assent to the constraints of a discourse that includes them both! :P

Also nice to see that the glossary really is provisional and is evolving all the time, but semantics (or semiotics) is such a personal thing arguing about it is like trying to chase your tail! For example "I claim India for England" made Britain responsible for the crazy stuff the east india company was doing in previously "foreign parts". For the first time making the health and well-being of the various indian peoples a part of the concerns of the British people exploiting them. So in a sense it is about recognising the responsibility that is associated with influence, a spiderman moment. It's not just flags!

But that's a sideshow to show how much of a sideshow this really is!

I'd rather jump into post-hoc assent.

I claim lumpley.com in the name of the Queen of Spain.

Regrettably I have no positive associations with the conquistadors whatsoever, looks like I'll have to take the blow! You better give Vincent some dice though or he'll never agree to it.

Long weekend. Let's see.

Ralph: "Vincent, If I were to reformulate your item #1 above as:

would we be saying the same thing?"

Sure.

I say both interchangeably (because they're interchangeable), but I think that what should I contribute, and how should I treat others' contributions? is more suggestive to good rpg design than who gets to say what about what, when? is.