Quote from: TonyLBIf I'm understanding concepts of ownership correctly, this would be the GM Editing in direct contradiction of elements I "owned," yes?

Eh, that's no different from creating a PC with Strength 18, and then having the GM tell you (probably just as the first battle begins) that the character only thinks he's that strong and really has Strength 4. That's a good time to remember the ancient words of wisdom: "Don't play with jackasses." Now, instead of that and if the GM still wanted to keep you out of the loop, he could have simply come up with a plausible reason why all your spymaster's contacts so far had failed to inform him about the operation, leaving you with an opportunity to try something new...

Quote from: TonyLBWell, I actually think that ownership is an illusion.

I have, for instance, made a spy-specialist in an Amber PbEM game, and dedicated more than half the character-building resources to having a well-developed network of contacts on Shadow-earth.  Then, in-game, the GM proposed a big plot centering on shadow-earth, and bunches of intelligence organizations mobilizing to find out what the hell was going on.  So, natch, I said "My character is intertwined all through that community.  I want him to be involved in this."  The GM said "No way man, your character doesn't have those contacts, everybody knows he's just a poser."

If I'm understanding concepts of ownership correctly, this would be the GM Editing in direct contradiction of elements I "owned," yes?  So ... do I get to sue him?  Do I have any recourse whatsoever?

I think that ownership is a short-hand for "people seem to be willing to accept almost anything I say about this element," or even (in cases where things have been talked out clearly) "people have agreed to accept almost anything I say about this element."  But that's all it is ... it's a short-hand for what is happening socially, and if that social situation changes (or was misunderstood) then the short-hand goes straight out the window.

The reality, I think, is that every player vets everything ... with the vast majority of that "editing" happening tacitly by the players not saying anything at all.

Every contribution that happens in the game has at least two parts:  The person who contributes it, and every other player accepting it.

I think the phrasing as "it's illusory" is misleading. I can't point to "freedom" (and, in fact, people may argue as to whether I am "free") but that doesn't mean freedom is "an illusion" and "the reality" is that 'none of us are free.'

Other than the phrasing, though, I agree that people can vote with their feet. However, note: the spending of in-game resources gives you a very clear tool over which to have the discussion about what's going on. You, from your perspective, bought some ownership.

If the GM doesn't respect that? Well, it's maybe more clear then when it's time to leave.

NOTE: I think that there are probably some reasonably common interpertations of the GM-Player dynamic that lead to it working for most people without any deep thought (see Koltar above). Since this happens pretty easily, I suggest that 'ownership,' if not a legality, is intuitive in many cases.

-Marco

What I think Tony's saying, and I agree with, is that "ownership" is only ownership as long as the other players cede ownership to you.  And they must cede that ownership to you every time you attempt to assert ownership of the element in question.  So there's really no such thing ownership established by the game rules.  F'rex, D+D may say that players own these things and the GM owns these other things.  Dogs in the Vineyard divides ownership up in a very different way.  Yet I've played in groups that functionally divided ownership up the same way when playing Dogs as we did when we played D+D.  

Similarly, there's no such thing as permanent ownership.  At any point in time, any player can challenge any other player for ownership of an item.  And it doesn't necessarily mean he's being a dick.  It may simply mean he's got something cool he'd like to contribute.  In pretty much every gaming group, if the rest of the group thinks that it's cool too, then they'll temporarily cede ownership to him.  If not, then that's when you might get an ugly ownership war.  

So, yeah, Marco..."it's illusory" might not be the best choice of words, but I think what Tony's saying here is undoubtedly true.

Quote from: Lee ShortWhat I think Tony's saying, and I agree with, is that "ownership" is only ownership as long as the other players cede ownership to you.  And they must cede that ownership to you every time you attempt to assert ownership of the element in question.  So there's really no such thing ownership established by the game rules.  F'rex, D+D may say that players own these things and the GM owns these other things.  Dogs in the Vineyard divides ownership up in a very different way.  Yet I've played in groups that functionally divided ownership up the same way when playing Dogs as we did when we played D+D.  

Similarly, there's no such thing as permanent ownership.  At any point in time, any player can challenge any other player for ownership of an item.  And it doesn't necessarily mean he's being a dick.  It may simply mean he's got something cool he'd like to contribute.  In pretty much every gaming group, if the rest of the group thinks that it's cool too, then they'll temporarily cede ownership to him.  If not, then that's when you might get an ugly ownership war.  

So, yeah, Marco..."it's illusory" might not be the best choice of words, but I think what Tony's saying here is undoubtedly true.

Right--I don't disagree with the concept, just the term's connotative baggage. Note, too that I'm not talking about "items" so much as "elements." In a normal D&D game I don't think I, as a fellow player, can ever really justify taking over an playing your PC (now, for example, if you're not there and the character is given to me to be played, that's an edge condition).

If someone across the table just started playing your character for you in a way you didn't like, I suspect you wouldn't go "well, hey--the idea that this is my character is just an illusion so how could I possibly protest this!?"

Most people I know would go "Hey, that's my character--you gotta play your own."

-Marco