Quote from: BWA;424027I think the implications are quite large. Like I said way upthread, without narrative authority, you have no role-playing game at all.

More specifically, as Bill is discussing, explicitly acknowledging this fact informs and shapes how we play RPGs in big ways.

No. Bill is talking about a specific model that we can assume to be true for the sake of discussion, not the baseline idea of "narrative authority" that you fall back on when you're challenged.

I don't agree with John on all things, but when he says he doesn't want "narrative authority", it's your job to figure out what he means, not to reinterpret it into a nonsensical claim that he doesn't want to play an RPG. That is, if you're interested in actual discussion instead of trolling and proselytizing.

John, note that Bill has said his model may be counter-factual. It's a thought experiment. Consider your descriptions of playing Traveller without a GM, though. While I'm not entirely comfortable with a language of "moral rights" when talking about kids playing pretend, was (or wasn't) there a sense that nobody in particular had any more say over the game than anyone else?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;424061John, note that Bill has said his model may be counter-factual. It's a thought experiment. Consider your descriptions of playing Traveller without a GM, though. While I'm not entirely comfortable with a language of "moral rights" when talking about kids playing pretend, was (or wasn't) there a sense that nobody in particular had any more say over the game than anyone else?

I think my point about rights vs. obligations stand.  Whether one views a "right" as a "freedom" (from interference) or an "entitlement" (that creates an obligation upon others to provide something) is a big one that has importance well beyond this discussion.  And I think that a big part of the reason why I don't like "story games" that expect or force me to exert "narrative authority" over things beyond my character's thoughts and intents is that they create an obligation that I do not want, which was a big part of why I made my comment that I do not want narrative authority.  

Several times, I've said that I have less problem with optional story-oriented rules than mandatory ones.  Put another way, I mind story-oriented techniques far less if they are a freedom (something a player can do) than if they are an obligation (something the player should or must do).  So are we talking about freedom or obligation when Bill says "moral rights"?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;424060I don't agree with John on all things, but when he says he doesn't want "narrative authority", it's your job to figure out what he means, not to reinterpret it into a nonsensical claim that he doesn't want to play an RPG. That is, if you're interested in actual discussion instead of trolling and proselytizing.

Elliot, do you think you could dial down the hostility a little? I was trying to respond to what you were saying. If you didn't agree with what I wrote, or I misunderstood you, that happens. If you can respond in a civil fashion, I can try to meet you halfway.

John, you raise some good points. Let me start to reply by saying that when I frame "narrative authority" as a "moral right to participate in the collaborative creation of an imaginary world," I include within that act of creation the playing of the character. So I'm divorcing from this speculative conception of narrative authority any notion of privilege for a particular rules approach. "Narrative authority exists, therefore you must use Hero points" is explicitly not the direction I'm headed. I use the phrase "collaborative creation of an imaginary world" simply to tie that moral right or authority to the term "narrative," which in this instance means "having to do with the act of describing some imaginary thing or event." Put another way, the game I'm playing in this thread is trying to imagine that players of traditional RPGs already have narrative authority (of what Eliot calls the "weak" sort).

In any event, John, your point about the existence of rights creating corresponding obligations is well-taken. By definition, my possession of a right creates in others an obligation not to dispossess me of that right--to the extent that someone does, they have behaved wrongfully. It's not clear to me that it's automatically the case that my possession of a right creates in me an obligation to exercise that right, which is what I think you were alluding to, but in this instance that's hair-splitting, since my fellow player's narrative authority is presumably something I'm obliged to respect.

So if we read "narrative authority" in traditional games with respect to players as "the right to play my character," then I'm compelled to concede that, yes, the fact that I'm playing in collaboration with others means that I'm obliged to recognize that my character is part of the world they're playing in, and so it's incumbent upon me to make my contribution at least minimally consistent with the expectations of others as to what the game is about. If that means that you can't name your guy "Bob the Fighter" because it makes Imhoden of Angthorp seem made-up rather than an organic and authentic part of the fantasy world, then I guess the presence of narrative authority does as you say constrain you in ways that you perhaps do not want.

Quote from: BWA;424105[...]

Stop moving your definitions around, and be honest.

Quote from: Bill White;423890Don't read anything into what I wrote that isn't there. The whole basis of the argument is not that there's something missing from traditional gaming, nor that the DM is a threat. I'm not saying that we need rules or system to guarantee that the players get narrative authority. Remember, this is all in response to the OP's question: what if "narrative authority" (for players) exists? So I'm saying that if we have it, then we have a right to exert it. I always get to play my character, no matter what the DM does.

Bill, I realize that you are writing from that premise (the OP's question). What I am contesting is that the premise naturally "amounts to a normative commitment to a kind of "good sportsmanship" of role-playing." I do not think this would be an innate function of such a putative narrative authority.

I did not intend to present your post as proposing that the DM is a threat, etc. If I phrased my response in such a way as to suggest otherwise, it was inadvertently so, and I apologize. I would myself appreciate it if you would not present my own responses or objections as if to a percieved "threat" to traditional gaming.

Quote from: BWA;423937If we accept that everyone playing the game has the authority to create fictional stuff, then the shared world becomes more real (ie - more immersive) because everyone is more heavily invested in it; everyone can see it more clearly, everyone has a greater stake in what's at hand.

Whether everyone is more emotionally invested in the world, or not, the authority to "create fictional stuff" is at odds with the concreteness of the imaginary world - the ability of a given player to react to that world as if it were real, whether or not he is 'immersed' in it or his attention on it is uninterrupted. In my opinion, if the player has his own putative narrative authority, the concreteness of that imaginary world is compromised - it becomes mutable, as it can be altered by player action rather than character action.

This, I would argue, differs from a setup wherein only the character effects an imaginary world, which is independent of the player, and thus interacted with by the means of the GM's presentation of the imaginary world. By interacting with the GM, the player interacts with the world; in a way, the GM could be thought of as the world itself.

Quote from: Cole;424205Bill, I realize that you are writing from that premise (the OP's question). What I am contesting is that the premise naturally "amounts to a normative commitment to a kind of "good sportsmanship" of role-playing." I do not think this would be an innate function of such a putative narrative authority.

I did not intend to present your post as proposing that the DM is a threat, etc. If I phrased my response in such a way as to suggest otherwise, it was inadvertently so, and I apologize. I would myself appreciate it if you would not present my own responses or objections as if to a percieved "threat" to traditional gaming.

Thanks for correcting my misapprehension, Cole. Sorry about that.

Quote from: ColeI think that even in a traditional model, play that is "collaborative, inclusive, and fair to all participants" is desirable, but I don't think it's strange or problematic that it is "imported from somewhere else" when that "somewhere else" is in fact the good sportsmanship, and cooperation of the participants. This does not depend on the "ethos of role-playing" but on basic human decency, and will not emerge from role-playing itself if not already there.

I read this as saying that we're ultimately in agreement about the style of play that we think is desirable, but differ (at least, as long I pretend to take this thought-experiment seriously) in terms of how we justify or validate that preference. I'm saying that our preference can be justified by looking at the expectations built into the structure of role-playing games as an activity in and of itself; you're saying that it can be justified in terms of a more fundamental principle of human decency. I suppose we could reconcile the difference by saying that, well, the specific expectations that should govern RPG play are a special case or application of those more fundamental principles, standing at the intersection of principles regarding play, sport, and games (on the one hand) and communicative behavior (on the other).

I'm not sure how satisfying you'll find that. I suppose if you had to decide which approach was ultimately "better," you could see which one generated the guidelines for action at the table and in the fiction that you found more appealing.

What you're talking about here is related to a point of confusion.

As you might guess from my earlier post, when you talk about a broadly-shared "authority" over the fiction, my points of reference are pretty radical. In a more recent (actual) example, there was a time that a friend and I essentially co-GMed a scenario using Mythic RPG, but with no players. We just bantered about what could or might happen next, what the "good guys" might do, what the "bad guys and neutrals" might do, and referred to the mechanics whenever there was any doubt.

Now you seem to be going back to a very conservative idea of shared narrative authority, which is as far as I can tell, mainly apportioning authority. You control X, I control Y. And then there's an additional element of responsibility (not giving your character a dumb name; more generally, making an effort to conform to the imaginary world).

Whether that comes from something specific to RPGs or from general human decency, I'm not sure that matters. But factually, a "strong" GM stands at the core of RPG development.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;424181Stop moving your definitions around, and be honest.

Okay! That's a firm "No" on dialing down the hostility. I appreciate the promptness of your response!

Quote from: Cole;424212Whether everyone is more emotionally invested in the world, or not, the authority to "create fictional stuff" is at odds with the concreteness of the imaginary world ...

I guess I don't see that, but, then again, immersion is a technique of play for me, rather than the goal of play. Plus I don't quite always know what different people mean when they say "immersion".

My examples earlier did go more toward the idea of "investment" than "immersion". I suppose I can see how inventing in-game fiction directly breaks your immersion, sort of ... but, again, either I just don't play that way, or my brain works differently.

Some of these "immersion" tangents are interesting to me, even if they are off-topic. But I guess that's a well-trod subject here.

Quote from: Cole;424212Whether everyone is more emotionally invested in the world, or not, the authority to "create fictional stuff" is at odds with the concreteness of the imaginary world...

Quote from: BWA;424303I guess I don't see that, but, then again, immersion is a technique of play for me, rather than the goal of play. Plus I don't quite always know what different people mean when they say "immersion".

My examples earlier did go more toward the idea of "investment" than "immersion". I suppose I can see how inventing in-game fiction directly breaks your immersion, sort of ... but, again, either I just don't play that way, or my brain works differently.

Some of these "immersion" tangents are interesting to me, even if they are off-topic. But I guess that's a well-trod subject here.

I made no attempt to address "immersion." Nor did I claim it as the goal of play - I did not use the term at all except to say whether or not someone was "immersed" was not relevant to my point.

I thought the topic was addressing the implications of narrative authority and its distribution when it it assumed to exist. I understood your prior claim to say that a measure of narrative authority in the hands of the (non-GM) players increased their "investment" in the imaginary world. Feel free to clarify if you think I have misunderstood your claim. I do not dismiss such a claim; my instinct is that it would vary from player to player.

What I was proposing was that a narrative authority held by the player to change the imaginary world/events directly has an impact on the player's interaction with the imaginary world as if if were concrete and independent of him.

Quote from: Bill White;424218I read this as saying that we're ultimately in agreement about the style of play that we think is desirable, but differ (at least, as long I pretend to take this thought-experiment seriously) in terms of how we justify or validate that preference. I'm saying that our preference can be justified by looking at the expectations built into the structure of role-playing games as an activity in and of itself; you're saying that it can be justified in terms of a more fundamental principle of human decency. I suppose we could reconcile the difference by saying that, well, the specific expectations that should govern RPG play are a special case or application of those more fundamental principles, standing at the intersection of principles regarding play, sport, and games (on the one hand) and communicative behavior (on the other).

Bill, I'm not really viewing it as an issue of "style of play;" I think that more civil or less civil behavior may be found no matter the particular style of play.

I must admit that I am not clear what you mean in using the work "justify."

Quote from: Bill White;424218I'm not sure how satisfying you'll find that. I suppose if you had to decide which approach was ultimately "better," you could see which one generated the guidelines for action at the table and in the fiction that you found more appealing.

I am not trying to claim any particular game, or approach to playing a given game as objectively "better."

Quote from: BWA;424303Okay! That's a firm "No" on dialing down the hostility. I appreciate the promptness of your response!

I think you're moving from Melinglor levels down to Blakkie levels of muddle-headedness. You get points for passive-aggressiveness and faux-martyrdom. Back on the IL you go!

Quote from: Bill White;424168Let me start to reply by saying that when I frame "narrative authority" as a "moral right to participate in the collaborative creation of an imaginary world," I include within that act of creation the playing of the character. [...] I use the phrase "collaborative creation of an imaginary world" simply to tie that moral right or authority to the term "narrative," which in this instance means "having to do with the act of describing some imaginary thing or event." Put another way, the game I'm playing in this thread is trying to imagine that players of traditional RPGs already have narrative authority (of what Eliot calls the "weak" sort).

I think that to the extent that players in traditional games have authority (which we can call "narrative authority" for the sake of argument if you insist), I think that in many ways, it's past the "imaginary world" in inside the character's skin if not their head, where a great deal can happen out of site.  Specifically, I think traditional role-players expect to decide what their character things and does (with a few setting-based exceptions such as mind control, fear, etc.) and thus much of what the player has control over can happen out of sight of the other players and the setting and inside of their head.  

Quote from: Bill White;424168In any event, John, your point about the existence of rights creating corresponding obligations is well-taken. By definition, my possession of a right creates in others an obligation not to dispossess me of that right--to the extent that someone does, they have behaved wrongfully. It's not clear to me that it's automatically the case that my possession of a right creates in me an obligation to exercise that right, which is what I think you were alluding to, but in this instance that's hair-splitting, since my fellow player's narrative authority is presumably something I'm obliged to respect.

What I'm alluding to is that once you frame the primary function of the game as being about a narrative and players' participation in it, then it's not difficult to find an obligation for the players to entertain the other participants and play a certain way.  It's like the difference between batting a ball back and forth and playing volleyball and keeping score.  Once an activity becomes about something, the quality of what it's about matters.

Quote from: Bill White;424168So if we read "narrative authority" in traditional games with respect to players as "the right to play my character," then I'm compelled to concede that, yes, the fact that I'm playing in collaboration with others means that I'm obliged to recognize that my character is part of the world they're playing in, and so it's incumbent upon me to make my contribution at least minimally consistent with the expectations of others as to what the game is about. If that means that you can't name your guy "Bob the Fighter" because it makes Imhoden of Angthorp seem made-up rather than an organic and authentic part of the fantasy world, then I guess the presence of narrative authority does as you say constrain you in ways that you perhaps do not want.

My point is that your obligations are going to depend on "the expectations of others as to what the game is about".  If the game is about telling a story, then the players are going to be upset if my character does something that ruins the story because it makes sense in character.  And if the game is about verisimilitude, then the players are going to be upset if my character does something that's not really realistic to improve the story quality.  This, at it's core, is the reason why play style and preferences matter.  It not only effects what you do but what you are obliged to do.  In a game that's about killing orcs, collecting loot, and blowing off steam, then "Bob the Fighter" might fit right in and maybe "Baltherelon, the introspective blacksmith" will be the odd man out.  By talking in terms of "narrative" and framing a player's participation in those terms, you are building on a foundation that assumes that the game is about a certain thing.

And in the big scheme of things, it may be better to talk about obligations rather than authority if people want to understand why certain play styles ignore certain players.