Quote from: Bill WhiteI'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.

Now we have come to the center of this thread.  

This is why narrative authority and role-playing games do not mesh if what you seek is character immersion into a "World in Motion" setting.  Generally speaking, in life, I can't make the wind ruffle my trenchcoat like a John Woo movie, or always find a bat in every closet or under every bed or behind every bar.  Wanting to walk into a club, head to the bar and buy the hottest chick in the place a drink, is my intent, it very well may not happen that way.  That's how life works, yes even life on a world with dragons.  

Being able to control the "trappings of a scene" is hellaciously cool if I'm playing a game with the focus of making the most awesome TV show ever.  If I'm going for character-setting immersion, not so much.

Quote from: BWAI 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.

Here we have finally come to the center of the other thread.  You don't really see how altering the setting can break immersion.  You don't play that way, or your brain works differently.  Not better, not worse, you just don't experience the same things I do when we "role-play".  Which is 100% perfectly fine.

However... don't then try to tell us that we have narrative authority when we role-play whether we realize it or not, because the way me, Morrow, Ben, et al play sees player narrative authority as the antithesis of role-playing immersion.

We just now got to the center? Does that mean we have 18 pages to go? Jesus. I can only imagine what terrible crimes Elliot will find me guilty of before the end. Colluding with Al Qaeda? Unwholesome desires? Mail fraud? The mind reels.

Quote from: CRKrueger;424354Being able to control the "trappings of a scene" is hellaciously cool if I'm playing a game with the focus of making the most awesome TV show ever.  If I'm going for character-setting immersion, not so much.

Granting that you and I may understand (or experience, or value) immersion differently, I think we're still comfortably within the realm of traditional GM/player division of labor when talking about narrative authority.

I understand what you mean about changing the trappings of a scene (like in, say, The Mountain Witch, the GM tells us we come upon a shrine high on the mountain, and asks me to describe it), but it doesn't have to be that  hippie stuff.

As Bill described it above: "I always get to play my character, no matter what the DM does."

That's the sort of thing I was referring to in the last thread.

Quote from: BWA;424105Elliot, 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.

Quote from: BWA;424362We just now got to the center? Does that mean we have 18 pages to go? Jesus. I can only imagine what terrible crimes Elliot will find me guilty of before the end. Colluding with Al Qaeda? Unwholesome desires? Mail fraud? The mind reels.

How about following your own fucking advice and tone down the hostility and respond in a civil fashion.

Quote from: John Morrow;424349In 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.

I am so stealing Baltherelon the introspective blacksmith for use as an NPC.

"Hey Baltherelon! Could you make us some more horseshoes?"

"I always loved making horseshoes, even as a child. I suppose taking base metals and hammering them into a shape of my creation has always been my way of asserting some sort of control over my world. There's so much we can never control. Without this forge I would probably go mad."

"Um... we need four of them."

"...not that anything I made was ever good enough for my father. No, he never gave me credit for solving the riddle of steel. But I'm as good as he ever was." CLANK CLANK CLANK

"You know what? I don't think we need any horseshoes after all."

CLANK CLANK CLANK

Quote from: BWA;424362As Bill described it above: "I always get to play my character, no matter what the DM does."

That's the sort of thing I was referring to in the last thread.

Exactly, and that's why you're wrong.  Bill answered my question.  If players do have Narrative Authority, then they may exercise it "no matter what the GM does."  

That's why players have no Narrative Authority in a traditional RPG.  The GM has final say, therefore players have no Narrative Authority, because as Bill said, if they did have authority, that comes with the built-in right to exercise it.  Traditional RPGs give the players no absolute right.  That's why what you said here...

Quote from: BWAI think we're still comfortably within the realm of traditional GM/player division of labor when talking about narrative authority.

...couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;424452I am so stealing Baltherelon the introspective blacksmith for use as an NPC.

"Hey Baltherelon! Could you make us some more horseshoes?"

"I always loved making horseshoes, even as a child. I suppose taking base metals and hammering them into a shape of my creation has always been my way of asserting some sort of control over my world. There's so much we can never control. Without this forge I would probably go mad."

"Um... we need four of them."

"...not that anything I made was ever good enough for my father. No, he never gave me credit for solving the riddle of steel. But I'm as good as he ever was." CLANK CLANK CLANK

"You know what? I don't think we need any horseshoes after all."

CLANK CLANK CLANK

:rotfl:

Quote from: CRKrueger;424494Exactly, and that's why you're wrong.  Bill answered my question.  If players do have Narrative Authority, then they may exercise it "no matter what the GM does."  

That's why players have no Narrative Authority in a traditional RPG.  The GM has final say, therefore players have no Narrative Authority, because as Bill said, if they did have authority, that comes with the built-in right to exercise it.  Traditional RPGs give the players no absolute right.  That's why what you said here...


...couldn't possibly be more wrong.

exactly...

Quote from: Drohem;424381How about following your own fucking advice and tone down the hostility and respond in a civil fashion.

It wasn't advice, it was a request. I fins that no one wants advice in life, unless maybe it comes from Billy Joel.

I try not to respond in an uncivil fashion except to those who are uncivil to me. I have no claim over Elliot's behavior. He has no interest in responding in a civil fashion to me, that's his prerogative.  It certainly does take two to argue, though, so I'll try to stop responding to him if it bothers me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;424494Exactly, and that's why you're wrong.  Bill answered my question.  If players do have Narrative Authority, then they may exercise it "no matter what the GM does."  

Well, I don't want to keep going back over this, since I have clearly failed to win over anyone. But once more for clarity's sake...

Standard, garden-variety D&D game. I'm a player, I sit at the table and respond to the DM's narration by saying what my character does. Nineteen times out of twenty, no one objects to what I say, nor does the DM "approve" in any fashion.

I say "I flip the table and curse loudly!" and everyone accepts that my character just flipped the table. That's what happened. The other players have their characters react to the flipped table, and the DM has his NPCs react to the flipped table. Clear, unambiguous narrative authority.

I'll call that the normal state of affairs. I think that's what most people's games look like most of the time.

One time out of twenty, the DM stops me after I speak, and says, no, my character DIDN'T flip the table. If he provides a plausible fictional reason ("Before you can move, the city guard bursts in!"), then I accept his authority over in-game events. ("Oh, crap, the guard. I hate those meatheads. Well, in that case we bust out the back way...")

If the DM fails to provide a plausible fictional reason ("No, you don't flip the tables, because you fall asleep instead because you're drunk."), then - in a normal, functional game - I don't accept his authority over my character. ("What? I fall asleep? WTF, dude? No way. I didn't drink anything, we just walked in."). If we don't both agree to what's happening in the fiction of the game world, it doesn't actually happen.

The DM can only overrule my authority over my character when I permit it. To me, that shows where the authority for that character lies.

Now, some may say that the DM gets to say whatever he wants no matter what because that's what RPGs are. If you play that way, I can't argue with you. But I think games like that are the rare exception, not the rules.

My apologies for presenting this case again, since I realize almost no one concurs.

Quote from: CRKrueger;424494...couldn't possibly be more wrong.

The hell you say! I can be WAY MORE WRONG.

GM-less play is truer to the spirit of Gygaxian D&D.

Quote from: BWA;424653The hell you say! I can be WAY MORE WRONG.

We've wandered into a Seinfeld episode...

Quote from: BWA;424652It wasn't advice, it was a request. I fins that no one wants advice in life, unless maybe it comes from Billy Joel.

Fuck you, Big Shot.  You knew exactly what I was saying.

Quote from: BWA;424652Well, I don't want to keep going back over this, since I have clearly failed to win over anyone. But once more for clarity's sake...

Standard, garden-variety D&D game. I'm a player, I sit at the table and respond to the DM's narration by saying what my character does. Nineteen times out of twenty, no one objects to what I say, nor does the DM "approve" in any fashion.

I say "I flip the table and curse loudly!" and everyone accepts that my character just flipped the table. That's what happened. The other players have their characters react to the flipped table, and the DM has his NPCs react to the flipped table. Clear, unambiguous narrative authority.

I'll call that the normal state of affairs. I think that's what most people's games look like most of the time.

One time out of twenty, the DM stops me after I speak, and says, no, my character DIDN'T flip the table. If he provides a plausible fictional reason ("Before you can move, the city guard bursts in!"), then I accept his authority over in-game events. ("Oh, crap, the guard. I hate those meatheads. Well, in that case we bust out the back way...")

If the DM fails to provide a plausible fictional reason ("No, you don't flip the tables, because you fall asleep instead because you're drunk."), then - in a normal, functional game - I don't accept his authority over my character. ("What? I fall asleep? WTF, dude? No way. I didn't drink anything, we just walked in."). If we don't both agree to what's happening in the fiction of the game world, it doesn't actually happen.

The DM can only overrule my authority over my character when I permit it. To me, that shows where the authority for that character lies.

Now, some may say that the DM gets to say whatever he wants no matter what because that's what RPGs are. If you play that way, I can't argue with you. But I think games like that are the rare exception, not the rules.

My apologies for presenting this case again, since I realize almost no one concurs.

In this light I am going to reiterate what I said from several days back. The traditional setup is that the GM is the person in charge of enacting the events in the imaginary world, and has the say on whether they occur or not. It is far from impossible that the GM might be cajoled, intimidated, or otherwise influenced in his decision of what to enact by social conditions independent of the game, but that is not the same thing - it doesn't even depend on whether or not a game is being played. Theoretically a wealthy man might bribe a judge - that does not mean that the law as implies that the ability to bribe a judge confers a rite to decide a judgment.

Quote from: Cole;421064I would say, rather, that the GM has been socially pressured to assert his own authority differently. Of course it's possible for the GM to make a poor judgment call, which has the potential of being detrimental to the game. But in the case you've given - The GM makes the statement about the "wind". The player says "bullshit."

The GM says, "OK, Joe, fine. Sir William jumps down to the wagon, roll your jump." The GM still entered the event into the fiction, he was just persuaded for whatever reason to enter another event into the game action.

The 'bullshit' factor of the negation is irrelevant.

Player : "I jump down to the wagon."

DM : "Joe, Sir William isn't even there. He went across town with Sir Edward to visit the temple."

Player : "Bullshit! Tom, if you don't let me jump in the wagon, I am going to tell mom! It's my copy of The Village of Hommlet anyway!"

DM : "OK, Joe, fine. Sir William jumps down to the wagon, roll your jump."

The DM is still the one who entered the event into the action. Only difference is who's more of an asshole, which is subjective and not related to the game, or the role of GM or player.

Quote from: Benoist;419835I wonder why it is so much of a big deal to have storygames recognized as role playing games in the first place...

The problem isn't people making a big deal out having "storygames recognized as RPGs". The problem is the people who seem to think that the difference exists between the two and that it fucking matters.

I mean, really, this is the only gaming forum I've ever seen this argument in. The only real reason I can see anyone giving a crap if a RPG is a "story game" or not is so he can feel smugly superior over the people who are on the other side of the "line in the sand". I mean really, what difference does it make?

You guys are so worried about something that doesn't make a lick of difference. All RPGs are RPGs. You don't have to like the rules or philosophies or whatever, but good lord stop acting like this is some industry-wide major debate. Stop focusing on and arguing about stupid stuff like thing and just frigging game.

Quote from: FunTyrant;424813The problem isn't people making a big deal out having "storygames recognized as RPGs". The problem is the people who seem to think that the difference exists between the two and that it fucking matters.

Nu-hu... :nono:  Nice try to turn the tables on me, mister.

Why is it a "problem" that people seem to think a difference exists and that it matters, in the first place?

Quote from: Benoist;424820Nu-hu... :nono:  Nice try to turn the tables on me, mister.

Why is it a "problem" that people seem to think a difference exists and that it matters, in the first place?

Turning the tables on you? I'm asking why trying to make these lines in the sand are so important.

It's a problem because it creates divisiveness where there doesn't need to be any. We're all just playing games. Trying to say some games are more game-ish than others is just silly wankery.