Quote from: CRKrueger;418659You don't grant him the authority, the game style grants him that authority.  You accept that authority when you agree to play the game.

Sure, I guess. Isn't that semantics, though? By playing the game, I am granting him that authority. I can choose to leave at any time.

That's all I mean there.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418659You have no innate authority over your character.  You character is one element of many in the GM's setting.  He has authority over all elements of the setting, including your character.  However, this being a role-playing game, you being in control of your character is the default state.  If, however, you fail a fear check, you might run despite your wishes.  

I'll agree with you about fear checks and that stuff. But those are special circumstances, yeah? In general, I get to say what my character does. If the GM chooses to exercise authority over my character (outside of a few special circumstances), he's kind of being a jerk, right?

Quote from: BWA;418660Sure, I guess. Isn't that semantics, though? By playing the game, I am granting him that authority. I can choose to leave at any time.
That's all I mean there.

Nope, you're not granting him anything.  You are simply choosing to participate in his game or not.  You're complaining about semantics yet you're still trying to sneak by loaded words.

Quote from: BWA;418660I'll agree with you about fear checks and that stuff. But those are special circumstances, yeah? In general, I get to say what my character does. If the GM chooses to exercise authority over my character (outside of a few special circumstances), he's kind of being a jerk, right?

If the GM is exercising authority over your character in a way consistent with what's happening in the setting - he's doing his job.

If the GM is exercising authority over your character in a way inconsistent with what's happening in the setting - he's being a jerk.

Generally speaking, you control your character's choices.  The ruleset and the GM together determine how those choices impact the game world.

Quote from: BWA;418655Let's assume none of us are those people.

Then please start trying to understand the distinctions that people are made rather than using broad definitions to try to erase those distinctions.  In other words, start by understanding the distinctions rather than by trying to erase them.

Quote from: BWA;418655Okay, sure. But I'm not talking (at the moment) about different styles of play, I'm just talking about fundamental stuff. The stuff that makes role-playing games different from strategy board games or Trivial Pursuit.

The stuff that makes role-playing distinct from a board game can be found in the term "role-playing".  The player's "piece" in the game is a role in a fictional setting that a single player focuses on as their perspective in the game.  That perspective is why role-playing games (and related computer games) have fog of war effects and hidden information.  The players don't normally view the game from an omnipotent perspective, like they do in a game of Monopoly or Chess.

Defining role-playing games as a narrative exercise is to downplay that defining component in order to define the hobby as interactive storytelling.  While some people certainly play that way, other people don't and have no interest in interactive storytelling.  They want to play a role.  That's why it's called a role-playing game.  Similarly, there are people who want to play a game who will point out that that's why it's called a role-playing game.  The people who try to define the hobby in a way that excludes "role-playing" or "game" will inevitably miss what a lot of people get out of the hobby, just like people who engage in interactive storytelling feel left out if someone defines the hobby as only role-playing and game.  And that's because the hobby isn't one thing.  It's a bunch of closely related hobbies that overlap, interact, and share certain features.

Quote from: BWA;418655So let's leave the somewhat tricky concept of "plot" aside, and just say that narrative authority means "The right to say stuff about the imaginary game world that everyone at the table agrees to."

That's an awful definition because it destroys a distinction that's critical to what most people actually do.  Narrative authority, if we must dwell on it, is the final authority to decide what does or doesn't enter the imaginary reality and in many traditional games, that authority lies solely with the GM.  What the players do is make narrative suggestions, but if the GM can decline those suggestions, they players do not have meaningful authority over what happens any more than a lawyer has legal authority in a courtroom to decide how a case will be decided.  A lawyer can make a case and apply the rules and appeal to the judge, but it's ultimately the judge and perhaps a jury that has the actual authority in the courtroom.  

I do not expect or want the authority for everyone at the table to automatically accept that anything I say that my character does automatically happens.  What I want to do is say what my character tries to do and perhaps the intent behind it and then the GM (or perhaps the rules and dice) have the authority to determine what actually happens in the imaginary setting.  That's not authority.  It's not narrative authority.  And framing it as "narrative authority" is wrong.

Quote from: BWA;418655Again, I'm not trying to slip anything past you. I am using narrative in the neutral, mechanical sense of the word.

The problem is with the word "authority" more than the word "narrative", but that can be taken too far, too.

Quote from: BWA;418655When we play an RPG, we don't actually see or hear or sense anything about the game world; the game world doesn't really exist.

When I think in character, that's actually pretty real.  I've had characters act on unconscious insight and thoughts without understanding why they are doing what they are doing.  So when I think in character, I'm making something exist that has some sort of life of it's own.  If you are skeptical of what I'm talking about, consider this old rec.games.frp.advocacy post from Mary Kuhner:

Quote from: Mary KuhnerWhen I'm playing I'm not generally aware of the body posture/voice mannerisms/adrenaline reaction stuff; I'm not a good actor and I have a terrible time doing this on purpose.  I know I do it because I've tried watching myself to see what "getting into character" means.  I got curious when my husband walked into a room once, looked at me, and before I said a word said "Hi, Ratty." How did he know?  Ratty is a street kid, doesn't care about dirt, and is timid; the combination means that he's generally touching things with his whole body in a way I wouldn't normally do.  When my husband saw me I was wound around a grimy stairway railing, trying to think what Ratty was going to do in that night's game....

In this example, the character that Mary Kuhner was thinking of was real enough and distinct enough that her husband could not only recognize that she was thinking in character but knew which character she was thinking as and addressed that character.  No, the character and setting aren't real in any physical sense, but I'm not sure I'd agree that nothing really exists.  After all, what is a personality, memory, or emotion but information in a brain?  As such, I think a character can essentially exist distinct from the player.  And the idea that a mind can be distinct from the reality of the setting it inhabits should not be alien to you if you've seen the Matrix or any other virtual reality movie.

Quote from: BWA;418655Instead, when you and I sit down to play D&D, every single thing that "happens" in the game was narrated by someone. You're the GM, and you said (narrated) that some orcs attacked, and I said (narrated) that I was drawing my sword and counter-attacking and then we rolled some dice.

That's not really true, either.  Things can happen in the setting that only happen in the mind of one of the participants and are never narrated to the others.  One example are the thoughts a character may have while thinking in character (when I discuss those with the GM, it's often outside of the game rather than part of the game narrative) and other example is the GM tracking background events that the players don't know are happening.  For all intents and purposes, those things happen in the fictional setting just as people that you don't know and aren't aware of are doing things on the other side of the planet.

The problem is that you are letting the tail wag the dog.  You are staring with the assumption that the game is a narrative and that the narrative is the most important thing and you are then folding, bending, spindling, and mutilating everything to fit into the expectations of your assumption.  That's called "begging the question" when making an argument.

Quote from: BWA;418655That's all I mean by "narrative". Is that all acceptable so far?

No.

Quote from: BWA;418657Now, when Benoist the GM said that orcs attacked, I didn't disagree. I didn't refuse to go along until he spent some of his "Monster Attack" points, or made an "Threat" roll, or whatever. Instead, I took the orc attack as an established fact; because in D&D, whatever the GM says happens - that shit happens.

Because we all grant him that authority.

Correct.  In a traditional game, the GM has the "narrative authority".  The players do not have the authority to block what the GM says happens, except by leaving the table.  The players can appeal to the GM to make something else happen, but the GM holds the final and real authority.  

Quote from: BWA;418657Similarly, when I said I counter-attacked, he didn't disagree, and say "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything." Because that would be seriously lame, and - while we all know that can happens in some not-fun and not-healthy games - that's not how D&D works. When I say what my character does, everyone accepts it, including the GM.

Here is where you are shifting the definition.  Being allowed to do something is not the same as having the unchallenged authority to insist it happened.  In a traditional game, the GM has the authority to say, "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything," if they choose to exercise it.  Nor is the GM doing that necessarily lame, not fun, or not healthy unless the players have serious authority issues and, like my 2 and 4 year old, don't take to being told "no" by the person with authority without pouting or throwing a tantrum.  In other words, what you are describing is not how D&D works.  

First, the GM has the authority to say, "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything."  But more importantly, you don't really have the authority to describe what actually happens as a result of your declared actions.  You can't say, "I counter-attack and slay the orc."  The game doesn't give you the authority to say that your character slays the orc nor even whether you hit the orc with your weapon.  The game rules expect you to roll to hit and roll for damage and then the rules have narrative authority over the situation (see this old Hunter Logan column rpg.net influenced by discussions that we had while I was briefly on the Forge and notice that control can lie in the GM, players, or rules).  So all the player is really doing here is stating their intent but both the GM or the rules can prevent what the player declares from actually happening in the "narrative".  Why?  Because the players don't really have "authority" in any meaningful sense of that word.  

But Forge people know that, don't they?  Isn't that why they constrain the GM with rules and player authority and isn't that why they give players the authority to trump the rules and GM?  If players really have meaningful "narrative authority" in traditional games, then what's the point of story-games going out of their way to give players authority you claim that they already have?

Quote from: BWA;418657Now, he might fail in his action, and the GM might tell me I need to engage with the game mechanics in some way (ie - make a saving throw, roll an ability check, etc), but generally, when it comes to my character, I get to decide what he does or says or feels or thinks. I have authority over that character.

You have authority to declare what your character decides to do.  Whether or not that actually happens in the imaginary game world is out of your control in a traditional game.  You are confusing making a declaration of intent with the authority to decide what happens and they are not the same thing.  

Quote from: BWA;418657Yeah? All in agreement? Or accusations of trickery and lies and known Forge-sympathies?

Not in agreement.  Getting colder.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418659If you keep trying to take terms that have very specific meanings in Storygaming theory like "narrative" and "authority" and generalize them in an attempt to get people to say "Oh yeah, Narrative Authority is part and parcel of every RPG." you're never gonna get past the post-modernist Forge wanker accusations.

I think the goal is to claim that there is no way a player can refuse to assume narrative authority over the game.  And I assume the follow-on is that if one is forced to assume even a small amount of narrative authority that you should just dive in and embrace as much as possible.

Which is why I am pointing out that there is no such thing as a "narrative" in my games.
We are not "telling stories." There is no "narrative." Ergo, there is no such thing as "narrative authority."

Quote from: BWA;418655So let's leave the somewhat tricky concept of "plot" aside, and just say that narrative authority means "The right to say stuff about the imaginary game world that everyone at the table agrees to."

Except that this is not what it means to most people; its not what it means to the Forge agenda, its not what it means to regular roleplayers.  
This is just a typical Forge tactic of trying to win the argument by demanding that everyone acquiesce to bullshit jargon that brings with it all kinds of implicit assumptions that creates a completely unrealistic perspective on the situation.

QuoteWhen we play an RPG, we don't actually see or hear or sense anything about the game world; the game world doesn't really exist.

And there you go again. You demand that we start the argument by assuming that Emulation and Immersion are useless.

RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;418657Oh, and the "authority" part.

Now, when Benoist the GM said that orcs attacked, I didn't disagree. I didn't refuse to go along until he spent some of his "Monster Attack" points, or made an "Threat" roll, or whatever. Instead, I took the orc attack as an established fact; because in D&D, whatever the GM says happens - that shit happens.

Because we all grant him that authority.

Similarly, when I said I counter-attacked, he didn't disagree, and say "Nope, sorry, your guy is too scared to do anything." Because that would be seriously lame, and - while we all know that can happens in some not-fun and not-healthy games - that's not how D&D works. When I say what my character does, everyone accepts it, including the GM.

Now, he might fail in his action, and the GM might tell me I need to engage with the game mechanics in some way (ie - make a saving throw, roll an ability check, etc), but generally, when it comes to my character, I get to decide what he does or says or feels or thinks. I have authority over that character.

Yeah? All in agreement? Or accusations of trickery and lies and known Forge-sympathies?

You get to decide what the PC ATTEMPTS. Nothing else.

But so what? You're trying to twist around this situation, "control of character", to mean that somehow Narrative control of the universe is a player right from the beginning or something. That shit won't fly here.

If that's really your only point, then the only other thing you could be arguing for would be that we throw out what the Forge has been trying to promote (and what regular gamers everywhere have REJECTED) as "narrative control", and rebrand it as something it doesn't in any way need to be rebranded as. "The player controls his character's choices" works just fine without being expanded into "narrative control" and the only reason to even attempt to do so is because you are trying to find a back-door into then trying to push GM-castrating Forge Swine "narrativism" on gaming.


RPGPundit

Quote from: BWA;418660Sure, I guess. Isn't that semantics, though? By playing the game, I am granting him that authority. I can choose to leave at any time.

That's all I mean there.

Yes, it is Semantics, and like a good little foucaultian post-modernist Swine, you are trying to use Semantics to dominate the conversation.  There are loaded assumptions behind that semantic difference.

In the regular RPG hobby, the assumption is that the GM's authority is inherent to the game, the second you start to play the game the GM is God, and your only option is to quit if you don't like how he plays.

In the version of Semantic warfare you are trying to impose, the GM's authority is some kind of an ongoing constantly-negotiated social contract, where his power depends upon a constant and repeatedly affirmed consent on the part of the players as they play. Implying that the players should have the power to over-rule the GM if they agree at some point that it is right for them to.  The GM is not god, his power is not absolute, it is granted to him by players with the implication that they can take it away in some form other than by quitting the game.

That's a very big difference in that it changes the fundamental assumptions of the game and the hobby as a whole.  But of course, you know that, because its part and parcel of the Forge's failed "revolution".

RPGPundit

Jesus walking on the water, you guys are paranoid. I repeat, I'm not trying to TRICK YOU into agreeing to something you don't like. I'm just trying to talk about how different gamers see things differently.

If you're convinced that I'm just being "sneaky" or this topic gets you riled up, then by all means, feel free to ignore this thread. There's tons of others.

Since we're not agreeing on the premise of the thread at all, let's back it up:

Quote from: CRKrueger;418663Nope, you're not granting him anything.  You are simply choosing to participate in his game or not.  

Okay, I'll stipulate that, in many cases, the very act of sitting down at the gaming table is an implicit granting of authority to the GM. So, for games like that, participation = granting authority. I don't think we're actually disagreeing here, we're just getting a little hung up on terminology.

But, in a very basic sense, a player in the most rigidly traditional game is still granting that authority, wouldn't you agree? Even if, as you say, the player's ONLY choice is participate or don't participate, that's still a choice. He can walk away, or not play. The GM can't FORCE anything; it's still a social activity between friends.

Do you buy that?

Quote from: John Morrow;418666Narrative authority, if we must dwell on it, is the final authority to decide what does or doesn't enter the imaginary reality and in many traditional games, that authority lies solely with the GM.  What the players do is make narrative suggestions, but if the GM can decline those suggestions, they players do not have meaningful authority over what happens any more than a lawyer has legal authority in a courtroom to decide how a case will be decided.  

John, if the idea of "dwelling on narrative authority" bothers you, don't read and post in a thread called "Narrative authority and role-playing games".

That said, your stance on this is interesting to me, because it seems so hardcore to me. Leaving new-school/indie/story/Forge games aside completely, just talking about, say, mainstream D&D, it seems to me that lots of regular, American, God-fearing gamers would not characterize their statements about their characters actions as "suggestions".

If we're playing D&D, and the GM says "Okay, the tunnel goes right and left. What do you do?" and I say "My paladin goes left, sword drawn!" then I think in MOST REGULAR GAMES, everyone will accept that.

Are you really saying that, in your games, that comment is treated as a suggestion, and everyone turns to the GM to decide whether or not the paladin goes left and draws his sword? (Assuming nothing out of the ordinary is happening, like he's secretly cursed, or the NPC thief glued his sword into the sheath, unbeknownst to him).

Quote from: John Morrow;418666The problem is that you are letting the tail wag the dog.  You are staring with the assumption that the game is a narrative and that the narrative is the most important thing...

Nope. I'm not doing that. I don't even think that. I like playing my character too. And when I'm GMing, I like seeing what the characters do in response to threats. Don't assume I'm doing secret sneaky things! Seriously, I'm not.

Quote from: Benoist;418675We are not "telling stories." There is no "narrative." Ergo, there is no such thing as "narrative authority."

Benoist, I think you're disagreeing with my word choice here, which is preventing us from actually getting down to anything substantial.

What words would you use to describe the process by which players and GMs decide on what happens in the fictional environment of the game? I think "narration" is a good word, because that covers people verbally describing the actions of fictional characters. But I'm not married to it; I'll accept something else.

And, to reiterate, I agree that we are not "telling stories"; RPGs are more subtle than that, and - most importantly - they are GAMES.

Quote from: BWA;418691Even if, as you say, the player's ONLY choice is participate or don't participate, that's still a choice. He can walk away, or not play. The GM can't FORCE anything; it's still a social activity between friends.
Do you buy that?

Right, I can't force you to play, and you can't grant me authority.  As GM of this game, I have the authority already, you accept my authority when you choose to sit down.  You leave my authority when you get up and leave.  At no time do you grant me something I do not already possess.

Quote from: BWA;418691And, to reiterate, I agree that we are not "telling stories"; RPGs are more subtle than that, and - most importantly - they are GAMES.

Ok, then you should have no problem giving up the term "narrative" as its definition lies solely in the realm of storytelling and literary creation.

Quote from: CRKrueger;418695Right, I can't force you to play, and you can't grant me authority.  As GM of this game, I have the authority already, you accept my authority when you choose to sit down.  You leave my authority when you get up and leave.  At no time do you grant me something I do not already possess.

Sorry, that's just silly. Unless there are a body of laws or rules surrounding something that are outside of the participants (say, rules of decorum or common morality) then RPG tabletop play falls under general social rules for playing a game. We either give authority to the rules themselves (as in games like poker) or to the arbitrator of the rules (as in baseball; though, like RPGs, there are rules even the refs must follow).

In chess, if we do not like how things are going (or at least we think they should be different) we appeal to higher authority - in this case, the rules as written. In the case of cooperative type activities (like RPGs and many sports) we appeal to authority in the form of the GM/Narrator/Viking Hat Wearer. In the case of "reffed" games, we can replace the authority figure if we feel that figure is not fair (though it generally takes all participants to agree that this isn't fair, unless there's an even higher authority).

You, the person, do not have authority until you step into the role of GM. We, the players, grant that authority to the role of GM for a variety of reasons, practical and fun. If we do not accept you in that role, your authority doesn't exist, no matter how much you might wave 'round the great horned hat.

How the GM can exercise that authority is the subject of much debate. And players within the same group do not always agree on how much authority to give. Some give total, some nearly none; it is in the middle of course where we argue the most. Especially when all are not agreed on how much authority to cede.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741Sorry, that's just silly. Unless there are a body of laws or rules surrounding something that are outside of the participants (say, rules of decorum or common morality) then RPG tabletop play falls under general social rules for playing a game. We either give authority to the rules themselves (as in games like poker) or to the arbitrator of the rules (as in baseball; though, like RPGs, there are rules even the refs must follow).

I don't know what role-playing books you've been reading but I have shelves and boxes full of them and the vast majority of them pretty clearly have rules that define the authority of the GM and players and discuss how the game should be played, possibly even with examples.  So, yes, in traditional games, players are giving authority to the rules which, in turn, give "narrative authority" to the GM.  As RPGPundit said, claiming that "the GM's authority is some kind of an ongoing constantly-negotiated social contract, where his power depends upon a constant and repeatedly affirmed consent on the part of the players as they play," is what's silly.  

If I agree to play Chess, I'm agreeing to follow the rules of Chess and taking turns, waiting for the other player, moving one piece at a time, moving the pieces in certain ways, and so on, and not negotiating the rules throughout the game, even though I can always choose to get up and quit.  Similarly, if I agree to play D&D, I'm agreeing to use the player and GM structure detailed in the rules.  I mean, in that case, we're talking about a game that has different rulebooks for the GM and player and many traditional games have the same thing, even if it's simply a different section in the rule book.  In the past, some went so far as to say that players should not read the GM rules.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741In chess, if we do not like how things are going (or at least we think they should be different) we appeal to higher authority - in this case, the rules as written.

If you don't like the way things are going because you are losing, then you have the same choice we were saying you had with an RPG.  You can either live with it or get up and walk away.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741In the case of cooperative type activities (like RPGs and many sports) we appeal to authority in the form of the GM/Narrator/Viking Hat Wearer. In the case of "reffed" games, we can replace the authority figure if we feel that figure is not fair (though it generally takes all participants to agree that this isn't fair, unless there's an even higher authority).

You are purposely trying to downplay the fact that it is the rules of most RPGs and sports that define the authority of that "referee".  And in a role-playing game, replacing the GM is essentially getting up and leaving the table because continuing the same game with a different GM generally isn't an option. You can stretch the meaning of "consent" to include not leaving the table, but that sounds an awful lot like a date rapist claiming that a drunk woman gave him her consent because she didn't stop his advances and didn't leave.  "Passive consent" is a way of looking at it that only a lawyer, post-modernist, or a person with an agenda could love.

Quote from: Mencelus;418741You, the person, do not have authority until you step into the role of GM. We, the players, grant that authority to the role of GM for a variety of reasons, practical and fun. If we do not accept you in that role, your authority doesn't exist, no matter how much you might wave 'round the great horned hat.

That's true of everything in life.  You can ignore the flashing police lights in your rearview mirror and keep driving, too.  So what's the point of this observation and framing consent in those terms?

Quote from: Mencelus;418741How the GM can exercise that authority is the subject of much debate. And players within the same group do not always agree on how much authority to give. Some give total, some nearly none; it is in the middle of course where we argue the most. Especially when all are not agreed on how much authority to cede.

How the GM can exercise that authority is the subject of much debate among a relatively small group of people who are unsatisfied with the traditional norm just as there are a small number of sports fans who debate the roles of referees and how they make calls in various sports.  There is far more debate over good GMs and bad GMs (just as there is far more debate over good referees and bad referees and good calls and bad calls) than there is over whether the GM should have authority over the game because most people aren't looking for "narrative authority" over the game.

I'm curious, though, for an example of a game that gives the GM nearly no authority.  Do you have one or more in mind that are played by more than a handful of people?

This seems to be a highly theoretical discussion. Why not agree on using a certain set of RPG rules to make it a bit more concrete? Or which of the games that hands players narrative authority is a big offender? Otherwise both sides are just talking at each other, ignoring what the other side says and pressing the playback button once it is their turn again.

Quote from: BWA;418625Before I make any statements about different kinds of games sharing this authority in different ways, does that seem legit to everyone? (Everyone = anyone who cares enough to respond).

Sure. I would like too hear what you have to say about this subject.

Some caveats: I know nothing about the forge or usually pay much attention to game design philosophy. It is my first time, be gentle.

My group is planning to play HeroQuest in the near future, but I am really only familiar with the setting material. I am told it is a narrativist game.

-Hans