Yeah, this seems like this is mostly wordplay in general.  

1) "narration"

In ordinary English, saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" is narration - as is saying "Regdar finds a secret compartment in the bottom of the chest."  However, they are narration about different subjects - and John Morrow's preference to only say things about what his PC thinks and attempts is completely valid.  Also, it is common within both traditional RPG and story game circles to use "narrational authority" to specifically mean narration over subjects other than the PCs.  i.e. There are plenty of Story Games threads where people use "games with narrational authority" to not include traditional RPGs.  

2) "authority"

It doesn't make sense to me to say that a GM with no players has "authority."  What's that authority over?  I think that it only makes sense to say the GM has authority once they have players - so the players both grant the authority by agreeing to play the game, and accept it when it is used.

Quote from: BWA;418625NOTE: I have no interest in evangelizing for a particular style of play, nor do I wish to call anyone a "cunt", so if you'd like to discuss things in a reasonable tone, that will be all right by me.

Except you are evangelizing a particular style of play by not discussing it with intellectual honesty.

So, you are a cunt.

Quote from: BWA;418691I'm just trying to talk about how different gamers see things differently.

No, you aren't.  The problem is that you are trying to get us to agree to see things your way rather than trying to understand why we see them differently.  A lot of gamers, probably the vast majority, do not see what they do as exercises in "narrative authority" and whenever we try to explain why what we are doing isn't an exercise in "narrative authority", you want to loosen the definitions so that you can still insist that it is.  If you really want to understand the difference, then stop trying to insist there is no difference and erase it by labeling everything identically and, instead, try to understand the distinction and the different labels people are using.  It's really that simple.  

Quote from: BWA;418691Okay, 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.

The whole idea of "implicit granting of authority" is essentially "passive consent".  If the players don't object to it, then they consent to it and grant the authority to do it.  Really?  Do you really believe that's how consent and granting authority works?

Quote from: BWA;418691But, 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.

I don't agree that indifference or not objecting is the functional equivalent of consent or a granting of authority.  In fact, I think that's potentially a very dangerous and malicious way to look at consent and the granting of authority.  To agree, consent, or grant in any meaningful way requires a conscious understanding that one is agreeing, consenting, or granting something.  

Quote from: BWA;418691Do you buy that?

No, no more than a buy any other claim that being there or not leaving equals consent.  To consent or grant something implies an understanding and conscious decision, not some sort of "implied" decision that could simply be indifference.

Quote from: BWA;418691John, 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".

If you don't want me to comment, then don't start a discussion with a quote from me.

Quote from: BWA;418691That 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".

It's not hardcore at all.  In fact, over the years, I've played with plenty of passive casual role-players who are quite happy with the GM telling them what happens and even telling them how their own characters react to some things.  And the reason why I'm characterizing their statements as "suggestions" is to counter your claim that they are exercising "narrative control", which is also not how the vast majority of role-playes would characterize their statements about their character's actions.  

You want to frame it as "narrative authority" because you believe the players are making those statements as an exercise in narrative control but I doubt most players see it that way.  In fact, I suspect most see it as telling the GM what their character does and the GM either accepts it into the narrative or doesn't, but the authority over what does or doesn't enter the narrative is with the GM.  If it's inappropriate to call what the players are doing a "suggestion", it's even more inappropriate to call it "authority" because that's not what it is at all in traditional role-playing games.  This is why most groups tend to describe a game or setting as being the GM's game or setting.

Quote from: BWA;418691If 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.

Sure, but that's not an exercise in authority, any more than a motorist is exercising authority if a police car passes them without pulling them over.  The authority remains with the police officer, even if they allow a driver to control their own vehicle without interference.  "Authority" does not mean what you are trying to make it mean.  Expanding the definition of a word so that it no longer means what most people think it means and so it can mean just about anything is exactly the sort of post modern nonsense I talked about in my first reply.

Quote from: BWA;418691Are 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).

What I'm saying is that nobody would automatically object if the GM told the player that the paladin did not in fact actually draw their sword or turn left in the game world for some reason.  That the GM passively allows the statements of the player to happen in the game world and enter the "narrative" does not mean that the GM has ceded that authority to the player or that the player has it in any meaningful sense.  The player does not have the power to decide what does or doesn't happen in the game world in a traditional role-playing game.  The GM has that power.  Defining "authority" independently of that actual power twists the meaning of the term.

Quote from: BWA;418691Nope. 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.

And that colors your interpretation of what's going on.  Years ago, on the Pyramid message boards, I had a discussion with Bill Stoddard where he talked about how his enjoyment as GM came from watching the players play their characters and I pointed out that, as a player, what I get out of role-playing occurs primarily inside of my head where nobody can see it and I really don't care if they do or don't.  By describing the game in terms of  a "narrative" and things that aren't talked about as not being real, you are ignoring a large part of what many people get out of playing, which doesn't pass across the table.

Quote from: BWA;418691What 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.

The problem with how you are using the word "narrative" is that you are using it both to describe what people say their character is doing and the acceptance that what they say as what actually happened.  A "process" happens between those two things, which is where the "authority" is exercised.

In my experience, when a person at the table describes what a character does or (usually in the case of the GM) something else that happens in the game, it's provisional pending approval.  It's essentially a suggestion, not a done deal.

In a traditional game, if a player objects (e.g., due to a "continuity error" that something couldn't happen -- "Your paladin can't draw their sword because they left it wedged in a door three rooms back."), then they are appealing to the person who made it to retract it or the the GM to agree but they do not have any direct authority to say it doesn't happen.  The GM also has the authority to retroactively change what happened to fix continuity problems, something a player may suggest but the GM has the authority to accept or not accept.  

The GM may also object for a variety of reasons or can choose to defer to the rules.  Either way, the player still isn't the one with the authority to decide what enters or doesn't enter the "shared imaginary space" or "narrative".  That authority still lies in the rules and/or the GM.  And if nobody objects, it may pass into the "narrative" as is.

So when a player says what their character does, it's not an exercise of authority, even if it ultimately passes into the "narrative" as stated because the player isn't the one with the authority to determine whether it does or doesn't pass into the "narrative".  The authority to decide remains with the GM.  Authority means control and the control that traditional games give players is to decide what their characters try to do, not what actually happens.

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.

And what do you mean by that?

Quote from: jhkim;418760In ordinary English, saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" is narration - as is saying "Regdar finds a secret compartment in the bottom of the chest."  However, they are narration about different subjects - and John Morrow's preference to only say things about what his PC thinks and attempts is completely valid.  Also, it is common within both traditional RPG and story game circles to use "narrational authority" to specifically mean narration over subjects other than the PCs.  i.e. There are plenty of Story Games threads where people use "games with narrational authority" to not include traditional RPGs.

In practice, when players declare long chains of actions that assume outcomes along the way (and I've seen people do this), it bothers me as both a GM and a player.  I want to say and hear, "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword," (or, really, "I swing at the orc with my sword," when said as a player) and not, "Regdar slays the orc with his sword, jumps over the chasm, grabs the the magic crystal and shatters it with his axe."  I consider everything after Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" provisional on whether the sword swing hits and how badly it hurts the orc if it does.

Quote from: jhkim;418760It doesn't make sense to me to say that a GM with no players has "authority."  What's that authority over?  I think that it only makes sense to say the GM has authority once they have players - so the players both grant the authority by agreeing to play the game, and accept it when it is used.

In most cases, what's missing from this equation is that when the players agree to play a certain game, they agree to abide by the rules and it's the rules that give the GM a certain amount of authority.  So while the players may have granted authority to the GM in some sense, I think that what they think of themselves as doing is abiding by the rules and that authority being a part of how the game is played.

The phrase 'narrative auithority' is a bullshit term concocted by folks full of crap.  Its a phrase dreamt up by those with some sort of authority issues to start with who somehow can't enjoy normal traditional role playing games.

At the RPG table the GM is the final authority.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;418768The phrase 'narrative auithority' is a bullshit term concocted by folks full of crap.  Its a phrase dreamt up by those with some sort of authority issues to start with who somehow can't enjoy normal traditional role playing games.

At the RPG table the GM is the final authority.


- Ed C.

So you are saying that people who enjoy their roleplaying games with a little more shared authority have mental issues?
I think that's harsh on the folks who never came here and are just happily  playing away at their shared authority games.
I mean, after all even the RPGPundit likes himself some LoA. A game where narrative authority is perhaps not outright shared, but traded within the rules for sure.

Quote from: DominikSchwager;418772So you are saying that people who enjoy their roleplaying games with a little more shared authority have mental issues?
I think that's harsh on the folks who never came here and are just happily  playing away at their shared authority games.
I mean, after all even the RPGPundit likes himself some LoA. A game where narrative authority is perhaps not outright shared, but traded within the rules for sure.

There is no "shared Authority" in real roleplaying games. There is sometimes a "Co-GM". that happens when the GM asks someone to help him or her run a game session - either because of specific NPCs involved or because one of them knows the game system better and might be giving an assist or mentoring a first-time GM.

Oh and what the fuck do you mean by "LoA"?. Is that shorthand for Amber the Roleplaying game? (I see "LoA" and I think of picnic cookouts set in Hawaii or other exotic locales....like Risa. )

If you bother to read past threads where this has been mentioned you'll notice that Pundit has already shredded your angle on that within the last year.


- Ed C.

Quote from: jhkim;418760Yeah, this seems like this is mostly wordplay in general.  

1) "narration"

In ordinary English, saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword" is narration

Except I'm not saying "Regdar swings at the orc with his sword." I'm saying "I swing at the orc with MY sword." This is not a narrative. This is something I'm experiencing live in my mind's eye. This is me describing what *I* am doing right now as my character as it occurs. The use of the terms "narrative" or "story" as they relate to role playing games suck and are only used to muddy the waters, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote from: Benoist;418629There is no "narrative" in my games. There is the game world.

misuse of language every time you describe what happens in your game world, that is narrative, sorry mate but it's the truth, let's please use words to mean what they say, not as some kind of mumbo jumbo terms of art

PS but I use "narrative power" as a short-hand for "narrative power of the kind customarily reserved to the GM"

Quote from: Omnifray;418807misuse of language every time you describe what happens in your game world, that is narrative, sorry mate but it's the truth, let's please use words to mean what they say, not as some kind of mumbo jumbo terms of art

See mate. I appreciate you're trying to turn the tables around here, but as far as I'm concerned, you're the one who's misusing words to try to intellectualize the issue and railroad it where you want to go. So I guess we're on an equal footing, here: you dismiss me as ignorant, and I dismiss you as intellectually dishonest. Nothing really new in terms of pro/anti-Forge debates here, really. That's not like we haven't had these types of discussions a thousand times before, right?

Quote from: CRKrueger;418658Nope.  Speech is not Narration.  Every accepted definition of Narration (look at just about every online dictionary you can find) includes creating or narrating a story as part of the narrative process.

From Google Search:-

# narrative: a message that tells the particulars of an act or occurrence or course of events; presented in writing or drama or cinema or as a radio or television program; "his narrative was interesting"; "Disney's stories entertain adults as well as children"
# the act of giving an account describing incidents or a course of events; "his narration was hesitant"
# (rhetoric) the second section of an oration in which the facts are set forth
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

# The act of recounting or relating in order the particulars of some action, occurrence, or affair; a narrating; That which is narrated or recounted; an orderly recital of the details and particulars of some transaction or event, or of a series of transactions or events; a story or narrative ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/narration

# narrate - provide commentary for a film, for example
# tell: narrate or give a detailed account of; "Tell what happened"; "The father told a story to his child"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Many of these definitions are not connected to literary works at all but include simply "giving an account describing incidents or a course of events" for instance. Please if you are going to use the Grand Imaginary Dictionary of the English language as your reference source, check it out with Mr. Google first.

Let's stick to plain English people, that way we don't disappear quite so quickly up our own bums

Quote from: Omnifray;418809Let's stick to plain English people, that way we don't disappear quite so quickly up our own bums

Nope. I'm talking plain English, as is Krueger. Sorry to disappoint you. The problem is that you already have a preconceived idea of us being ignorant idiots and you being intellectually superior. We're not really discussing here. So long as you're not willing to use your brain to actually address the meat of the argument instead of its lexicography, we won't be getting anywhere.

Quote from: RPGPundit;418684Yes, 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.

Poetic, but I'm not quite getting why "narrative" is treated as such a loaded term. Maybe it's loaded with technical junk meaning from Internet discussions of RPGs, but I don't really care about that stuff. In ordinary plain English it can perfectly well mean simply "describing a series of events". As for the notion of "narrative authority", I don't see that the very use of that term implies limits on the GM's control of the game.

Personally, I hate the term "social contract". It implies all sorts of fanciful notions of morality based on free will and agreement and at bottom it's a bunch of philosophical bollocks. But "narrative authority" - what's wrong with that?

Perhaps only that it's used in Forge theory as a term of art? Fine. I can see that that might be a problem. But I don't think I have a problem with that particular term of art (I have a problem with a lot of the others though). As far as I'm aware it means basically what it says - having narrative authority means having the power to recount events authoritatively (by implication, beyond simply playing your own character). I'm not sure it really comes with any baggage such as the idea of a social contract.

Anyway logically it's true there are limits based on the real world on the GM's deification. Doesn't matter who's GMing, for instance, even if it's the author of the game, if he starts talking about throat-raping cabin boys, the players will (hopefully) walk - even if Pundit is one of the players, he will walk. So the GM doesn't have that authority.

EDITED TO ADD:- and long before a player walks, he usually threatens to walk, IME. So it's not just take it or leave it. He threatens to walk, a compromise is reached or isn't, and the player does or does not walk.

I've had arguments with players before who've wanted unreasonable things for their characters. XP they hadn't earnt, that sort of thing, because they felt the game would be more balanced that way. Generally the GM holds a bit of a trump card but not always. Sometimes he has to back down because players get so upset about these things (even players who are old enough and experienced enough that they ought to know better) that the game will end if the GM doesn't cave. Now, I hate caving, and it takes a lot for it to happen. But sometimes for instance I might have one player who rarely gets to game, so I might be prepared to give ground just to keep the game going for that player's benefit, even if if they weren't there I would stick to my guns and let the game fold.

But if you can show me examples of how Forge doctrine has contaminated the word "narrative authority" in such a way as to bring a lot of Forge baggage with it, I'd say - shouldn't we reclaim those words as ordinary words used in ordinary English? If that turns out to be impossible, fine, we might look for alternative phrases. "The power to control the game-world" for instance. But that's all "narrative power" really means to me at least, and it's a snappier phrase.

Well, I certainly can't pretend to be surprised by the level of hostility here towards this kind of discussion. But, man, it's genuinely disappointing.

Here's another try. Since the words "narrative" and "authority" are such flash points, let's use something else for purposes of this thread.

1. To me, "narrating" is when we speak during role-playing games to say what our characters are doing, or what is happening in the imaginary game world.

2. To me, "authority" is the power to say something, during a role-playing game, and all other players (GM included) accept that thing as valid and true, without having to engage the mechanics.

Anyone who objects to these words, throw up a suggestion for something new, and we can use that, if it makes sense.

Also, someone suggested picking a single game, so let's use D&D 3E, if that is acceptable. I'm sure it's not everyone's favorite game, but it seems like maybe a good common denominator.

Quote from: Benoist;418810Nope. I'm talking plain English, as is Krueger. Sorry to disappoint you. The problem is that you already have a preconceived idea of us being ignorant idiots and you being intellectually superior. We're not really discussing here. So long as you're not willing to use your brain to actually address the meat of the argument instead of its lexicography, we won't be getting anywhere.

No, Benoist, I certainly don't have that preconception. For all I know you're a thousand times cleverer than I am and I have no problem with that. I'm just saying, I used Google as my dictionary, and that's what it threw up as plain ordinary English.

What you do by denying the existence of narrative in your games is (please forgive the observation, I'm just being honest here) indistinguishable from what Forge theory does in its reliance on semantics. You are obfuscating the real issue.

The real issue if I understand it is that you are saying that in your games the focus is on playing the role of the characters, rather than on arriving at a particular kind of story.

And there we are in complete agreement. I wasn't even trying to address that issue. I was just making a side-point, which is:- you've dressed your perfectly valid point up in obfuscatory language by using "narrative" in a very narrow sense when in fact it admits of several senses, some of which are fairly broad. To be fair, some of the definitions I found do tend towards the literary definition which might support the way you used the word, but I think, with respect, overall it harms your cause more than helps it to be artificially restricting the word "narrative" to that narrower meaning.