This spawned from Tony's thread about the dynamic between participants when dealing with some element of in-game fiction--as an owner and a non-owner.
For example: If I'm a player and the GM tells me my character "thinks the peasant is disgusting"--and I believe my character wouldn't think that--then I, as the player's owner, might challenge or amend that*.
Tony had asked about cases where the owner is tacitly accepting a statement simply by saying nothing. Player: "I go to the mailbox and put the letter in anonymously."--this assumes there is a mailbox and the PC knows where to find it--but the Player is pre-supposing on the world, at least a little and the GM in this example owns that.
There was also questions about whether or not the owner "accepting" input even when the owner plans to negate it later was an example of this interaction--and wether a tacit-yes due to absentmindedness counted.
Here's what I think: Although ownership is usually somewhat muddy in traditional games around fringe cases (can a GM tell a PC "what they think about something"?) in most cases it's well understood--and in cases where editorial control is 'abused' (GM: "There, um, are no mailboxes in this town!" PC: "Oh, c'mon!") it's often clear and there exist normal human-interaction methods to resolve it.
What this means is the following: When ownership is recognized by the group then the dynamic means that you know the owner gets to negate your input--or modify it--or accept it--or maybe accept it now--but modify it later. Because the issue here is that the person who owns something more or less in the way I think we tend to think of it owns it.
There may be some other rules about responsibility (consistency, fairness, suspension of disbelief, sportsmanship)--but absent those rules, if the GM recognizes that I own my character he may describe a disgusting beggar--but I'll decide if my character feels pity or revulsion.
-Marco
* For purposes of this example, I want to stick with a player--but let's save the discussion of how much influence a GM can have over a PC's internal state for phase 2.
Quote from: MarcoTony had asked about cases where the owner is tacitly accepting a statement simply by saying nothing.
Actually, there is a precedent for this kind of thing. Google "consensus based decision making" -- the typical process of voting is, instead, abstracted further into four types of proposal responses:
- Acceptance: Signified by saying nothing.
- Acceptance w/ Reservation: Agreement to accept a proposal, but with a reservation. Signified by a raised hand and disclosure of reservation.
- Stand Aside: A "no confidence" vote, though not a passionate move against a proposal. Signified by raising a hand and saying "Stand Aside".
- Block: A definite, passionate, move to block a proposal. Signified by raising a hand -- must be accompanied by a well-reasoned argument against the proposal.
Proposals are made and do not pass until concensus is reached. Revision typically takes place extemporaneously, based on individual positions as offfered for discussion. Basically, this takes the "win or lose" out of voting, validating reservations and grievances, while giving everybody the opportunity to be heard and revising the proposal accordingly. I've just started looking into this for application in business, though I think that it can be applied to games, as well.
Quote from: MarcoThis spawned from Tony's thread about the dynamic between participants when dealing with some element of in-game fiction--as an owner and a non-owner.
Personally, I think that obsession over ownership and control during play leads no place good (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml). YMMV.
It leads to communism?
Very interesting article, John, but I don't know what to conclude.
Quote from: Elliot WilenVery interesting article, John, but I don't know what to conclude.
Does it sound like fun to you?
I put it in the off-topic forum, too, for more general discussion.
Well, a few things:
1. There's no obsession with ownership. If I'm playing my character and you, as another player, start trying to play my character (or dictate how you think my character should be played), my basic mode of play is I get final say.
That's "ownership." If I, again as a player, declare that an NPC is actually a double agent ... because it would be cool ... I expect (in most trad games, anyway) the GM to have final say. Again: ownership.
2. In the lego example there are finite resources. Not so in the RPG context (at least not exactly the same way). It's more like areas of responsibility in that sense. The GM is responsible for the world--the PCs still get to live there.
3. The question was raised in context about how people have a functional dynamic in RPGs given that the space is potentially so complicated. I think that this "ownership" or "area of responsibility" makes it easy (in many cases--but, of course, not all cases) to know when you are in someone else's territory, so to speak.
This doesn't mean the player can't go "Hey--and I look at the guy and I see ... it's my cousin! The Masked Specter is my cousin! Woah!" and the GM can't go "Hey, cool--okay." It just means that you can't be assured of always doing that any time you feel like it because the GM gets to control that NPC and gets to be the gatekeeper for it.
-Marco
Quote from: MarcoThere's no obsession with ownership.
I don't think you are necessarily obsessed with it, but I do see a certain amount of obsession with control and ownership in various theory discussions that discuss it in those terms.
Ownership? ... Ownership?
I cannt remember this issue EVER coming up in a game that I run. (If it did we'd NEVER use that term for it . )
The players generally understand that the GM (Me) has a meta-plot going on with many of the NPCs . Some NPCs are just "regular Joes" and don't care about the player characters one way or the other . (live and let live attitude)
If a player wants to introduce a new story element or detail - they usually talk it over with me first , so that I can make it work as part of the bigger story and its done in a way that doesn't annoy or bore the other players.
- Ed C.
Ownership ?? Geez!! What happened to people just talking to each other when a campaign starts? No one ever heard of that? .... oy Vey!!
Quote from: KoltarOwnership ?? Geez!! What happened to people just talking to each other when a campaign starts? No one ever heard of that? .... oy Vey!!
Me neither. I've never discussed the "ownership" of anything in the game with the people I play with. For that matter, I also don't refer to ... things ... in the game ... as "in-game elements."
Yeah--geez. What are these guys on about!?
:-D
-Marco
On ownership of in game elements, I tend to take fire....
...What? :o
-clash
Quote from: MarcoYeah--geez. What are these guys on about!?
I think the problem that we are having is understanding the point of the tread. You pretty much described the traditional role-playing division of control, which could be summed up as, "The players control their characters and the GM controls the setting and NPCs." OK. Now that we know that, what do we do with it?
Well, 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.
Quote from: John MorrowI think the problem that we are having is understanding the point of the tread. You pretty much described the traditional role-playing division of control, which could be summed up as, "The players control their characters and the GM controls the setting and NPCs." OK. Now that we know that, what do we do with it?
Oh, I completely agree. This is, IMO, pretty standard--I'll respond to Tony's post in a second. The
point of the thread was that Tony asked about some basic people-dynamic stuff and I said "I think that one thing that really helps people get is straight a lot of the time is that there are these moderately distinct realms where one guy at the table is understood to have most of the control and responsibility."
"So that," says I, "helps make it clear to players what kind of dynamic to expect when they state/suggest something."
Tony suggested another thread and ... here it is!
-Marco
Quote from: TonyLBIf 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?
Where'd you find that idiot? Your recourse is to kick him in the nads and look for a real GM. He has about as much business being a GM as my cat has piloting an F-16. You invested your character points into contacts which he refused to let you use. That's the equivalent of cutting the arms off a D&D fighter.
Idiot!
-clash
Quote from: TonyLBWell, I actually think that ownership is an illusion.
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.
What Tony said. This is the best bit of RPG analysis I've seen on the net in a long time. Not because of its sheer brilliance or anything, far from it. I consider this glaringly obvious. But so much RPG theory/analysis is based on the opposite premise, so it can't really be as obvious as all that.
Carry on.
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