Quote from: BWA;420489Good question! But I would say definitely not. Resolution is a specific thing, right? Where the RULES of the game live, usually. At least the important ones.

I'm talking about little stuff, the normal stuff of role-playing. Like, you're the GM and you say "The troll king bellows before the city gates, and the clashes his axe against his shield. The soldiers around you tremble.", and then you pause and look at us, and I say "I tell them to fear not, for victory is surely at hand." I had the authority to say that at the table, to narrate what my character is doing in response to the GM's information.

But no point in re-hashing it, I guess.

I suppose resolution isn't a great word for it after all. I would say that in the "normal stuff of role-playing" lies most of what is important - and that in practice the player can only declare his intended course of action.

In your example, in a traditional RPG situation, it is within the prerogative of the DM to respond "before you can make your bold statement, to your left you see the lieutenant of the guard levelling his musket at you. 'I'm afraid I'm going to have to relieve you of command,' he says."

The player declared his intent to speak, the DM's resolution of the attempt is in effect like a 'failure,' contrasted with a 'success' if the DM had responded "When you say that, the soldiers..." - or compare it with "the Troll king swats you with his axe before you can throw your javelin. What's your armor class?" vs. "okay, roll to hit with your javelin."

That's what I meant by "resolution." Many actions for whatever reason do not call for a roll, but it is up to the DM to resolve them. The roll isn't the important issue. Often for convenience's sake the DM may proceed in such a way that the action would generally be acknowledged to have taken place, but this only means the DM has tacitly acknowledged the declared action to enter the unfolding series of events.

Sometimes the DM needs to have this in order to give the player information - "I climb into the hole." "The hole is full of boiling tar. Do you actually want to do that?" - or to actually prevent an absurdity. "I go back through the west door." "The door is actually in the east wall."

This happens because the game environment is an imaginary construct, but the character also being imaginary, and part of said construct. In the traditional RPG the DM is the one entering the declared event into the present action of the environment. The player doesn't directly enter the declared event, even if he was pointing a gun at the DM like Phil Spector.

I might make the analogy that while you could point a gun at the DM and force him to eat a sandwich, you couldn't achieve "the DM eating a sandwich" by eating a sandwich yourself.

So, the traditional RPG, 'authority' may not even be the best word for it - given the traditional RPG format, only the DM has the possibility of entering events into the current action. But using 'authority' for lack of an immediate better idea, perhaps I might describe the situation as "In the context of the game, the DM has authority over action; the player can only declare intent."

Now, unlike some I'm not saying it's some kind of social evil to have another paradigm, for example a storygame, some other kind of GM-less game, etc. I'm just continuing an effort to make clear what I see as a distinction between the practice of the traditional-format of RPG and different formats.

So in the games you play, you say "Fear not." to the soldiers.  

There's nothing the GM can do about it?  

He can't say "Sorry BWA, but your character is affected by Troll fear as well?  

He can't say "You intend to say that, but you have your own problems, as you see the Lord of the Nazgul swooping down at you?"

He can't say "The soldiers can't hear you over the din?"

What if he does?  What happens next, a discussion?

Quote from: CRKrueger;420052*snip*
A traditional RPG assumes that the GM is competent and not an asshole.  If the GM is incompetent and/or an asshole, then you don't fix that with rules handcuffing the GM.  You find a new GM.

Quote from: CRKrueger;420080Well, the way I see it, players have no authority at all.  If the GM can countermand your stated action, then you have no authority.  The GM is the one with authority.

*snip*

The characters belong to you, but as long as you are playing in a setting, the characters belong to the world, and the world belongs to the person from whose mind it sprang, the GM.

However, all of this is again predicated on a moronic GM who's being a dick.  Yeah he can be a dick, yeah you can walk away.  That's it.

CRK.,Cole...great stuff!

with  mature player/GM interaction etc...not an issue with a good group!

Quote from: Cole;420497In your example, in a traditional RPG situation, it is within the prerogative of the DM to respond "before you can make your bold statement, to your left you see the lieutenant of the guard levelling his musket at you. 'I'm afraid I'm going to have to relieve you of command,' he says."

Quote from: CRKrueger;420508So in the games you play, you say "Fear not." to the soldiers.  
There's nothing the GM can do about it?  
He can't say "Sorry BWA, but your character is affected by Troll fear as well?  
He can't say "You intend to say that, but you have your own problems, as you see the Lord of the Nazgul swooping down at you?"
He can't say "The soldiers can't hear you over the din?"
What if he does?  What happens next, a discussion?

Those are all good examples of when a GM can over-rule the player. In most traditional games (and I'm including most games I play, as well - I play very few GMless games regularly), the player has some degree of authority over the shared narrative, but the GM typically has more. That is totally cool.

So, yeah, sometimes the GM might tell me that my character did not, in fact, say the thing I just declared. But other times - most times, in fact - you say what your character does, and the GM and other players respond accordingly.

That is to say, they accept your authority to say that stuff, and *poof*, that stuff becomes "reality" in the game world.

And it doesn't have to be inviolate fiat by everyone. Each thing can be a building block, and in a socially-healthy group that just makes things better.  Stopping to discuss things, whether it's with the GM or another player, is fine too.  

Like, in the example above ("The soldiers can't hear you over the din"), the GM actually is accepting the player's authority there. He heard the player's statement and immediately incorporated something new. And the new thing is totally valid, even though it negated the player's intent. And the new thing also makes the game more fun. "Oh, shit, they can't hear me. I'd better get that war banner and get their attention ..."

To me that helps immersion, since you can just roll with it, trust one another to add cool, realistic stuff to the game directly, via role-playing, and not worry about getting or giving approval for everything that anyone says.

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...

This has been my take...I have a "gaming group", not a "role-playing group".

A LOT of times we play RPGs...sometimes, though, we play board games or card games, etc...at the end of the day, they're all just games that are hopefully fun.

Quote from: Cole;420497So, the traditional RPG, 'authority' may not even be the best word for it - given the traditional RPG format, only the DM has the possibility of entering events into the current action. But using 'authority' for lack of an immediate better idea, perhaps I might describe the situation as "In the context of the game, the DM has authority over action; the player can only declare intent."

I'm not sure that's correct. I mean, maybe it's correct in your game, or maybe it's how some RPG texts are written, but I have played plenty of games with plenty of people over the years - the vast majority of them traditional games - and this stuff I'm talking about is pretty normal behavior.

Many, many, many times, players say what their characters are doing, and no one disputes their right to do so. To me, that is telling us that, under normal circumstances, anyone playing can "enter events into the current action" (your phrase, and a good one).

Sure, the GM can present some additional piece of fiction that negates it, but usually that's not what happens. Usually the player's narration stands.

And in most socially-healthy games, if the GM did negate a player statement, but it was bullshit (like, "Oh, you don't jump down to the wagon because, uh, the wind starts blowing really hard"), the players would call him on that. ("What? That's bullshit."). Which tells us that this idea of iron-clad GM control over every aspect of the shared fiction is not necessarily true. If the GM has to make a case for his negation on a social level, then that means he is appealing to the shared sense of ownership over the game. (Which sounds like a way more fun game, to me).

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;421031A LOT of times we play RPGs...sometimes, though, we play board games or card games, etc...at the end of the day, they're all just games that are hopefully fun.

By definition, story games can never be fun. They are only vehicles for misery and ideological grievance.

Quote from: BWA;421034By definition, story games can never be fun. They are only vehicles for misery and ideological grievance.

Except, of course, for the people who enjoy playing them.

I mean, I don't believe I've ever actually played a "story game"...although I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn on that.

According to some comments on this site, a game like Savage Worlds isn't a "real" RPG because it has bennies and Adventure Cards that players can use to affect the outcome of actions above and beyond die rolls.

Heck, I think the WWE RPG that was released a few years ago must be a storygame, because there's no true GM and whoever has the successful action for the round narrates all the action for said round...and darned if I didn't have a blast the few times I played it.

I think people just get way too caught up in calling everyone else's fun "wrong".

Quote from: BWA;421034By definition, story games can never be fun. They are only vehicles for misery and ideological grievance.

Your dictionary sounds very odd, yet probably a blast to read.

Quote from: BWA;421032And in most socially-healthy games, if the GM did negate a player statement, but it was bullshit (like, "Oh, you don't jump down to the wagon because, uh, the wind starts blowing really hard"), the players would call him on that. ("What? That's bullshit."). Which tells us that this idea of iron-clad GM control over every aspect of the shared fiction is not necessarily true. If the GM has to make a case for his negation on a social level, then that means he is appealing to the shared sense of ownership over the game. (Which sounds like a way more fun game, to me).

I 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 toe 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: BWA;421034By definition, story games can never be fun. They are only vehicles for misery and ideological grievance.

Seriously though. Why is it so much of a big deal to have story games recognized as RPGs, and not something else?

Quote from: Benoist;421072Seriously though. Why is it so much of a big deal to have story games recognized as RPGs, and not something else?

SHORT VERSION

Well, it's not a particularly useful distinction. If you go to any hobby store that sells RPGs, they're all in the same place. There is no "story games" section. If you look on any gamer's shelves, the Burning Wheel books are with the D&D books.  When I play these games, I do the same things, which are different things from what I do when I play board games or video games or cards.

More to the point, none of my comments in those two recent monster threads were about "story" games, though. Every example I gave was from D&D.

LONGER VERSION

I accept "story games" as a somewhat useful label to differentiate games I tend to enjoy, but even that isn't helpful. If you asked whether I'd rather play a "story" game tonight or a "trad" game, I'd say the former, but really I'd want to know which games you were talking about. It's okay as a vague descriptor, but it isn't useful as a category description.

And, really, where does this "They're not real RPGs!" thing come up? It comes up on message forums where people talk about RPGs, this one specifically. Where it is almost always used as a way to obfuscate or derail a discussion.

If you come to my house and we play Fiasco* and you say "Okay, that was really fun, but it wasn't a role-playing  game, it was a story game." then I'll say "Ok, sure" and that will be that, because it won't matter. You probably won't even bother.

* Which anyone in the greater Washington DC area is invited to do.

Sounds a bit fishy to me as an explanation. If it just wasn't "useful" to differenciate between story games and role playing games, you wouldn't write four or five screens long posts about how these two things really aren't different at all. Nah. You want to persuade us these are the same things, so you must have a point beyond just "the distinction is somewhat useless." Otherwise, why bother?

BWA, there's one key element you're missing.  If the player says he does something and no one countermands it 99% of the time, that doesn't mean the player has ANY authority.  All that means is that the GM exercises his authority 1% of the time, the rest of the time he tacitly agrees.

Not trying to flame, but to be honest, you seem to have a real hangup with words like "authority" and "permission".  Jesus Christ, you don't ask the GM "Can my player please jump down onto the wagon?"  You say "I jump down into the wagon." - statement of intent.  The GM then agrees or he alters, extends or outright countermands what you intended to do.  That's what he's there for.

I don't think you get the idea that all these example you are giving of what you call player authority in RPGs are not player authority at all.

Just listen to yourself.  You're basically saying that because a cop doesn't pull you over 99% of the time you see one, that you have some sort of authority.  The cop can pull you over whenever he feels like it, the fact that he doesn't, doesn't mean you have authority, and the fact that he can doesn't mean you "ask permission" before you make a U-turn.  Sheesh.

Quote from: BWA;421032

Quote from: ColeSo, the traditional RPG, 'authority' may not even be the best word for it - given the traditional RPG format, only the DM has the possibility of entering events into the current action. But using 'authority' for lack of an immediate better idea, perhaps I might describe the situation as "In the context of the game, the DM has authority over action; the player can only declare intent."

I'm not sure that's correct. I mean, maybe it's correct in your game, or maybe it's how some RPG texts are written, but I have played plenty of games with plenty of people over the years - the vast majority of them traditional games - and this stuff I'm talking about is pretty normal behavior.

Many, many, many times, players say what their characters are doing, and no one disputes their right to do so. To me, that is telling us that, under normal circumstances, anyone playing can "enter events into the current action" (your phrase, and a good one).

Sure, the GM can present some additional piece of fiction that negates it, but usually that's not what happens. Usually the player's narration stands.

It just feels to me like you're just getting really hung up on the particular language you want to use. I don't see how it's helpful to describe players as having "authority" when the condition is "whatever a player describes for their PC is OK unless overruled by the GM". The fact the GM doesn't overrule often doesn't enter in to it (and I think we're all agreed that they don't) the point is that they always can.

As Cole says, players declare intent. Way back when before Peter Adkison decided that everything about a PC must be transparent to the player in D&D 3e, it was pretty common for people to play games without knowing much what the rules were (our group still plays like this). People would say what they wanted to do and the GM would tell them what the appropriate rules were for that action and how to resolve it. Pure intent - the GM then resolves the intent in to action.