Quote from: BWA;422569Dude, I totally answered you. Whether or not you accept the validity of the answer is on you.

OK. It's cool. It's on me. I hereby reject the validity of your answer. As far as I'm concerned, you did not tell me why you are so interested in making story games recognized as role playing games as to write zillions of words about this on these very boards.

Quote from: BWA;422576However, you can't deny that people on this forum feel threatened by these newer games, which is what I was referring to.

I personally do not feel threatened. I do feel that the feel of the traditional games I enjoy, like D&D or Warhammer, to name two, has been threatened in the past by story-games theory, and still is, periodically, however. I do not want these games I enjoy to become story games, because I like them as they are. As simple as that.

Quote from: BWA;422569Well, while this thread is somewhat meandering, it was predicated on stipulating that players DO have narrative authority. So it doesn't seem valuable to get into arguing the point here, especially since there was just a 50+ page thread on that very topic that led to this one.

The short answer is that I disagree with your contention that none of these map to a player's role in a trad RPG. I think that they do.

The long answer, if you like, is contained in the prior thread. Many, many, many times over. Plus a lot of nonsense, deliberate obtuseness and name-calling.

Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think I've actually seen you explain why you believe players in Trad RPGs have authority, when you've had multiple Trad RPG gamers explaining to you how in the games they play, players do not have authority.

I assume one of three things is happening.

1. You feel we're wrong and players have authority in our games. If so, please explain or point me to where you did already.
2. This is just an "at my table" thing, and in your experience of Trad gaming players had authority
3. Whharrrgle gaarrrrbl.

I think, from the way you've posted in the past, that it's point 1. From what I've been able to follow of the discussion, it seems to be going like this:

You: Players have authority because they can say what their PC does
Us: But the GM can overrule it!
You: But he generally doesn't, so they have authority
Us: But he can do it, so they don't.

I haven't seen the discussion move past that stage. It just seems to be looping around the last two points. I may have missed something though - as you say, it's two long threads.

Quote from: Grymbok;422679You: Players have authority because they can say what their PC does
Us: But the GM can overrule it!
You: But he generally doesn't, so they have authority
Us: But he can do it, so they don't.

That's pretty much it.  BWA's so far been resting his whole discussion on "Giving RPGers authority isn't a big deal, since they already have it."  Since they really don't, it's been hard to move on from there.

If he wants to discuss how you could give players authority without ruining immersion, that would be interesting.

Insisting on using the term "authority" for what players do with their characters is a deliberate ploy to distract you from the goal of proselytizing the use of "player authority" over things that are further and further distant from the characters.

The real issue has already been covered. BWA is just another of the martyr/evangelist/trolls that pop into these boards from time to time, and not a very strong one. As far the theoretical angles, I think we had a pretty good discussion years ago:

What is Narrative Control?
Background: The Need for Conflict Resolution?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;422849Insisting on using the term "authority" for what players do with their characters is a deliberate ploy to distract you from the goal of proselytizing the use of "player authority" over things that are further and further distant from the characters.

The real issue has already been covered. BWA is just another of the martyr/evangelist/trolls that pop into these boards from time to time, and not a very strong one. As far the theoretical angles, I think we had a pretty good discussion years ago:

What is Narrative Control?
Background: The Need for Conflict Resolution?

nice...and thanks for posting those great links!

Quote from: Benoist;422626As far as I'm concerned, you did not tell me why you are so interested in making story games recognized as role playing games as to write zillions of words about this on these very boards.

That's emphatically NOT what I wrote zillions of words about on these boards. I write zillions of words about other things, and then was asked (repeatedly) to defend this minor point as if it is important to me.

My short answer, and if it doesn't satisfy you, you will have to remain unsatisfied: My experience with role-playing games (which is extensive) tells me that there is absolutely no sensible way to divide all games into two categories. None at all. I have read and understand the argument that somehow there are two drastically different hobbies under one roof, but I don't see it, and I don't agree with it.

Quote from: Grymbok;422679Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think I've actually seen you explain why you believe players in Trad RPGs have authority, when you've had multiple Trad RPG gamers explaining to you how in the games they play, players do not have authority.

I assume one of three things is happening.

1. You feel we're wrong and players have authority in our games. If so, please explain or point me to where you did already.

That's it in a nutshell. I explained my take on this about one million times in the "Narrative authority" thread. I'll try to go back and cull my most eloquent passage, but I'm not sure I'm up for it at the moment.

Bear in mind, I don't think people are wrong because they're dumb and I'm so smart because I read some shit Ron Edwards wrote ten years ago. I think this mostly (not entirely) is a definitional argument. And the language of "authority" as a mechanical concept really pushes some people's ideological buttons.

Quote from: CRKrueger;422772If he wants to discuss how you could give players authority without ruining immersion, that would be interesting.

That's a big question, and all I can say is that different people clearly play differently. I play lots of different games, and the preferred style of play to to influence the game world through my character. But if I have the ability to influence in-game events, it doesn't bother me at all.

Maybe that means you and I experience immersion differently. Maybe it means that you value an intensity of immersion that I do not. Maybe it means that I hate role-playing games and I only want to destroy all fun. Hard to say.

If you want to talk about that for serious we can start a new thread.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;422849BWA is just another of the martyr/evangelist/trolls that pop into these boards from time to time, and not a very strong one.

Lighten up, dude.

Quote from: BWA;422889My experience with role-playing games (which is extensive) tells me that there is absolutely no sensible way to divide all games into two categories. None at all. I have read and understand the argument that somehow there are two drastically different hobbies under one roof, but I don't see it, and I don't agree with it.

I agree to disagree.

narrate:vb,1:tell (a story)

Authority:n,1:expert 2:right,responsibility or power to influence 3pl,: persons in official positions

ala Webster...obviously we are dealing with the second def. of authority. And note the () bracketing "story"

so,players having the "power to tell" seems to be the gist of it. In TradRPG approaches the GM has authority to veto ANY input for whatever reason so players do not have authority.They do have a responsibility to stay true to character(IMO) and the GM may grant them the right to dictate many of their actions without amendment.But this right is situational.

This has been pointed out numerous times and there you have it AGAIN. This can be a sticky point to get around...if you choose to ignore these truths. Now "rule 0" trumps all and if in your play of TradRPG your group may decide to apply the authority differently but that is a houserule so...no "argument" there.

As a GM I appreciate player input and riff off it on occasion. I have no problem amending (vetoing) PC intentions if the situation calls for it. I do not do it on a whim. In a mature group with like expectations this has not been a problem. Sure some folk get touchy when this authority is called on but when the situation is played through they usualy see the logic in negating their desired intent.Many times this is only a matter of interupting a string of events rattled off by the player not knowing the full details.

and besides TradRPG's are not designed to "tell stories" asides from those formulated after the fact. If they were about "telling stories" they would have the mechanics to support that style of play (I know many have a blurb about "stories" in their intro. but when that is not supported by mechanics,well...?) and this repetative discussion would not be happening...

oh, and I would say there is more than 2 types of "Gaming" experiences being housed under one roof...Trad., Story and NuSchool. And lumping these approaches is disfunctional for discussive purposes (sp.?).

Quote from: skofflox;422903so,players having the "power to tell" seems to be the gist of it. In TradRPG approaches the GM has authority to veto ANY input for whatever reason so players do not have authority.

That's where I disagree. In practice - at most gaming tables, not just crazy hippie ones - the GM does not have the authority, in a social sense, to veto anyone else's input for any reason he wants. And that social authority is all that matters, when it comes to RPGs.

I understand this may happen in some games, and if you want that for yourself and your game, so be it. But it's not the normal state of things.

The thing about social phenomena is that they go in every direction and they don't follow strict rules or definitions. When there's tension between the player and the gm's idea of what should happen next, but they play on, it's impossible to say who's "exercising authority". You can see this in the account I gave of a D&D game (barotha's lair) where I as gm decided on the fly not to be as strict about torches as I'd been.

The thing is: there is no formal set of rules governing this, and if there were, it would completely screw up the game by creating an impression of players being able to arbitrarily change things regardless of how anyone else feels. Of course Ron Edwards regards informal social processes as "social battery".

Quote from: BWA;422959*snip*
- the GM does not have the authority, in a social sense, to veto anyone else's input for any reason he wants. And that social authority is all that matters, when it comes to RPGs.

I understand this may happen in some games, and if you want that for yourself and your game, so be it. But it's not the normal state of things.

erm..."social sense"...:huhsign:
if you choose to disregard the rules as writ and apply house-rulings to who has the authority that is great!
 
ALL TradRPG (those with GM/player paradigms) give the GM TOTAL AUTHORITY TO VETO
Have you read/played any D&D,T&T,MERP,C&S,..well you get the point.) so...what are you talking about?
Did you read the rest of the post?
Name me ONE TradRPG that does not have this as a caveat?

In over 30 years of play I have never seen a TradRPG group forego this "rule" (rule '0' trumps!) in actual play.By this I mean that all in the group,including the DM,agreed to forego this aspect of the rules before a session/campaign. I have seen many sessions where the authority was not used because the game flow was functional but it was still an option reserved for the DM.

Quote from: BWA;422959That's where I disagree. In practice - at most gaming tables, not just crazy hippie ones - the GM does not have the authority, in a social sense, to veto anyone else's input for any reason he wants. And that social authority is all that matters, when it comes to RPGs.

I think this (bolded) is the sticking point. I don't think anyone is arguing that at their table the GM is going "No Billy, you can't attack the Orc because you're a little bitch. Instead you drop your pants and bend over for him".

What's being said is more that the GM can veto player input when he has good reason to do so, or where the player input leaves the GM space to do it within (a classic example here being "I walk to the store"/"You get halfway there when...").

If a claims processor has to hand every claim they work on to a supervisor to be signed off before it can be sent out, we wouldn't describe the claims processor as having the authority to send out claims, even though the supervisor may well approve 99% of claims and is not able to just reject claims "for any reason they want".

That's how I see things happening at the table. Players declare intent. Only once that intent has been through the two stages of the GM and the rules/dice do you see action. And only the GM has the authority to move through those stages.

Quote from: Grymbok;422998I think this (bolded) is the sticking point. I don't think anyone is arguing that at their table the GM is going "No Billy, you can't attack the Orc because you're a little bitch. Instead you drop your pants and bend over for him".

Okay! I do feel like this is a round-and-round-they-go argument, but I'm willing to go around once more.

I agree with you completely that no one is saying that the GM can do any bullshit asshole thing he wants - like your orc example. We can al agree that  THAT game is dysfunctional, and no rules can help it.

You wrote this: "What's being said is more that the GM can veto player input when he has good reason to do so."

Again, I agree with that too.

But that caveat you inserted (the bolded portion) - the completely sensible, healthy, functional caveat - is what gives lie to the idea that the GM has total authority.

If we sit down to play D&D, and the GM says "No Billy, you can't attack the Orc because you're a little bitch. Instead you drop your pants and bend over for him", then what happens?

Skofflox says that the rules for every "traditional" game ever codify the GM's right to do this. I'm not sure that's true, but I'll accept it as given. But in practice? Think what would happen at every gaming table you've ever sat at if the GM seriously did that. The players would let him know that was bullshit. In a healthy, functional gaming group, the GM does not have the all-important social authority to do that, no matter what the rulebook might say.

Again, total smokescreen and Forgist sophistry. The underlying aim is to gain acceptance of mechanically-enforced "narrative authority" on the grounds that it's "no different" from the social limitations and trade-offs that occur in healthy, normal play. Completely false! If it were true, then in a game that formally gives a player "narrative authority", the player wouldn't be subject to the additional social limitations and trade-offs from the rest of the group. But they are. Social influences are sui generis and can't be replaced by formal mechanics or "distributions of authority". Attempts to do so either result in horrible games or are themselves reinforced socially by ideologies such as "I Will Not Abandon You", which attempt to displace the group-cult's goal of mindfucking onto the rules.