Adept Press

OK, how Leadership, Authority, The GM (with its associated fallacy), GM-full, GM-Tasks, and Credibility interrelate.

My current thinking is first to treat Leadership and Authority in full for their internal properties at their appropriate levels, respectively Social Contract and Techniques. And for each one, internally, so clarify that their various components can be squished together in one person or separated across people, to any degree.

But each one also mentions the other, in relationship to a problem, specifically confounding them as well as centralizing them, to create the problem called "The GM." This is a subset of the GM page, which itself references the GM-Tasks, GM-full play regarding those tasks, and also this "The GM" problem.

My first concern is how the GM-Tasks interrelate with the four Authorities and the three kinds of Leadership, and whether that's redundant. Or once you pull those out, what remains for GM-Tasks in terms of pure Technique.

My second concern is whether this organization will make sense no matter which page someone starts from. Currently all the text is very, very rough, so please make any suggestions about it that can help with this utility.

My third concern is whether Credibility and Authority are redundant, and if they're not, how that can be expressed.

My fourth concer is whether the four kinds of Authority are totally fucked. I look back on them now and they look idiotic. If you'd asked me before I looked at the original post, I would have stated them differently:

Content Authority for back-story and geography and all that stuff
Situational Authority for immediate features, locations, and circumstances of play (i.e. scene framing)
Outcome Authority for interpreting the system's concrete effects in action (which if you think about it also means interpreting the use of all within-scene Techniques)
Narration Authority for being the person who gets to voice the outcomes and add anything which is not dictated purely mechanically (which in some systems is a big deal and in others isn't)

I mean, "Plot Authority?" What the fuck was that supposed to be? I think these are way better. What do you think?

Best, Ron

The first question I would ask is: are the GMing task the sum of Authorities and Leaderships, or not? There is something specific and different about GMing task that require a separate page?

If not, the GMing tasks can become a sub-header in the GM page, losing the list of tasks but retaining the concept.

It's much easier to link to "the GM" from any other page or simply searching the word (it's easy, it's always upper-case) that finding GMing task (I would have searched for "GM task" for example), and authorities and leaderships link to each other and to GM. (so, no matter the page you come in, you see all three)

About Credibility and Authority...  The way I see it, authority is "who has authority about what and when" by the system. Credibility is about a single "fact", so it's ephemera.

Example: I am playing Dogs in the Vineyard, I block a raise saying "I jump 60 yards in the air".
I have narrational authority about my block. The system says that to be accepted as "true" that narration should pass the judgment of the other players at the table. This don't mean that my narrational authority is shared, even if the narration is vetoed, I am the one who will choose what to say the second time, too.
OK, so I say that I jump 60 yards into the air.
It's credible? It's accepted in the shared imagined space or is considered not credible?

This was a rather clear case because the system of DitV allow the rejection of anything not credible for the other players, but what about another game?

D&D, the GM has all the authorities, and he is saying that the PC's arch-nemesis is fleeing away on a giant bee.
One PC says "I shoot him down with a magic arrow". The GM replies: "no, he is in the middle of the trees, you can't get a clear shot".
Another PC says "OK, if he's in the middle of the trees, I can capture him taking command of these trees"
"No, he is flying high over the tree, you can't get him"
(this by the way really happened to me. I was the second player)

The GM has full authority, but his declarations lack any credibility. The SIS unravel for a time during which the bee is in two places at the same time, and we are back to the table while the fiction in in "pause" and the message we get as players is "you can't get the arch-enemy this evening, no matter what you do"
His authority is maintained (we don't get the arch-enemy) but that narration still has not credibility.

About the 4 authorities...  right when finally I was beginning to get what "Plot Authority" meant...  sigh...
Let's see:
Content Authority for back-story and geography and all that stuff
Situational Authority for immediate features, locations, and circumstances of play (i.e. scene framing)
Outcome Authority for interpreting the system's concrete effects in action (which if you think about it also means interpreting the use of all within-scene Techniques)
Narration Authority for being the person who gets to voice the outcomes and add anything which is not dictated purely mechanically (which in some systems is a big deal and in others isn't)

I am not sure I get Outcome authority. There is scale involved? (I mean, you say "within-scene". What about interpreting session-scale events, like for example the "every session" roll of some Apocalypse Worlds playbooks?
And what do you mean with "interpreting"? In case of, for example, Primetime Adventures, narration and interpretation are not the same thing?

This is a very interesting topic and I think I've got a lot of things to ask/tell about.
IMHO, the problem is that the term "authority" is used for different contexts (i.e. authority to say something, authority to approve something, ...).
In my experience (not so exaustive as yours) the authority can be split in:
1) The authority "to say something". The "fictional scope" for which a player (including the [optional] GM) may say something that cannot be contrasted, in whole or in part, by other players. In this case, the fictional scope may vary in extension and may be applied to one character, more characters, one location, more locations, plot events, ...
2) The authority "to oppose to something said". This is another stuff and basically revolves around. On which "fictional scope" may I say "No, this is no good to me? and HOW?

If my considerations are correct, then my view of authority (for the context of this forum) may be:
- Narrational authority (i.e. WHO can say WHAT, with WHAT being a broaden (and usually blended) fictional scope, and we may discuss to diversify and name differently these kind of authorities)
- Oppositional authority (i.e. WHO can oppose to WHAT and HOW, not so sure if HOW fits here.)

Hope my comments fit in and may be of some help. :)
Rob

Hello there

Ron, would Outcome Authority cover things like who decides when it's time for a revelation (the identity of the masked guy) like Plot authority covers? If yes, am I correct that pacing mechanisms go in here? If yes, in a game like Dirty Secrets, this is in part regulated by the rules (players choose suspects, the rules decide who is the culprit amongst them), so maybe something should be said about the rules having some authority (also, randomly generating stuff), or at least that not every last bit has to be decided by players.

Rob is unto something here. Universalis has a similar thing where you can pay for Tenets that exclude things from the game.

Arranging authority is just one way to secure the group's assent. The question isn't "who gets to say what so that it sticks," but "what should I say, and how should I treat the things others say?" Games have I dunno a dozen or more different approaches to securing assent, all mixed and matched. Referring to them all under the heading of "authority" means that we're misunderstanding and misrepresenting all of them but one.

A simple change, which I consider no more correct, but suggestive instead of misleading, would be to look at them as expectations instead of as authority:
Who is responsible for creating content, and what should they take into account?
Who is responsible for scene framing, and what should they take into account?
Who is responsible for outcomes, and what should they take into account?
Who is responsible for narrating, and what should they take into account?

Or permissions:
Who should volunteer to create content, and under what circumstances?
Who should volunteer to frame scenes, and under what circumstances?
Who should volunteer to determine outcomes, and under what circumstances?
Who should volunteer to narrate, and under what circumstances?

-Vincent

Rob, it's not a general rule (there are a few games where you really can't talk if you have no authority), but usually, almost always, the "narration authority" is better pictured like this: "everybody talk, everybody suggest, everybody make objections, but who is the one that at the end make the final decision?"

So, in general, there is no difference between people who talks and suggest and people who make objections: they are the same people. Narration Authority decide which suggestions AND objections are kept.

Authority is not even by a single person: a lot of times in games it's shared, in a precise way regulated by system (for example, conflict outcomes narration in Trollbabe) or informally (for example, conflict outcomes narration in Sorcerer, where conflict outcomes are much more detailed and so "outcome narration ownership" is not such a big deal).

In the example I made using DitV, it could be argued that every player has narration authority, because they can say "no". I don't think so, but it's for reason tied to the specific game: the Veto in DitV has a very specific reason and use: protection of setting/color coherence.
You can't use the Veto in DitV if you don't like something. You use it if something would destroy the credibility of the setting, like for example if someone block with the arrival or a star trek ship. But if someone block with the death of your favorite NPC? Tough luck, you can't veto that block only because you wanted that PNG to stay alive.
So, (for me, anyway), the Veto in DitV is part of content authority.

But in another game where you could use a veto for something you simply don't like or don't want to happen, like for example the "objection" rule in Dirty Secrets, that rule would give other players some narration authority, yes.

[crosspost with Vincent]

What Moreno calls "veto" in Dogs, I'd rather see as part of the Creative Leadership thing (be it shared/democratized "leadership", or a feedback loop to keep the "leader" in check) than as any form of Authority proper. What do you all think?

Thanks for reply and I'll try to give my opinion to all of the very important concepts treated here, being, to me, the most important aspects about the roots of rpg activity.
As Ron suggested i've taken my time and wrote these lines in a word processor trying to condensate everything in a single post. This means that I'll try to answer to multiple people intertwinning my opinions. As usual, I hope to be clear in my exposition.

It seems to me that the first post by Ron was looking for two different needs:
1) Agree about definition of concepts and relationships between them.
2) After the agreement, what would be the best representation in the wiki.
I'll talk about 1, because I think that most of the 'misunderstanding' (at least mine) derives from a not precise use of words. And I hope that my logic reasoning could fit all the elements Ron is talking about in the first post.

For the context of this forum, Authority may be (to me) "The power or the right to do/claim/obtain/decide something." This definition "as is" needs extensions:
- Authority must have an owner. It may be one player, it may be shared (i.e. more than one player may have the same power over the same "domain of application")
- Authority needs a specification about the way I can exercise my power.
- Authority needs a "domain of application" (which is the 'scope' over which I exercise my power).
- Authority needs to a specification about how much time the owner retains the same authority
- Authority needs a specification about how the owner may lose or yield the authority
- Authority is legitimated by explicit (i.e. written and agreed) rules or "conquered/reached" through non explicit rules (i.e. non written and agreed). If rules are not agreed, authority is obviously missing.

All of previous bullets basically generalize the:
WHAT allows WHO to do WHAT and for HOW MUCH TIME
The following figure represents the same concepts in a table. I may extend the example to more than one player, but I hope in a charitable reading, but if needed I'll do.

(http://www.levity-rpg.net/it/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/AdeptForum-Authority-01.png)

It seems to me that most (all?) of your comments basically says things about the content of a single cell (or clusters of cell) but don't consider the complete view (which instead gives a key to fit them all together).

Now, going back to Ron's first post I'll try to do my best to give an organic representation of my view, trying to let all things stick together in a coherent way.

Quote
OK, how Leadership, Authority, The GM (with its associated fallacy), GM-full, GM-Tasks, and Credibility interrelate.

1) Leadership is a subset of Authority (i.e. is a subset of rows in the table) in the sense that it defines some things that one of the players is allowed to do in order to reach the goal. In the table this means that one player has more tasks (row) than the others. Usually Leadership allows the owner of this authority to own it for the entire duration of the instance of play and there will be few (or no) opposition to what he does/decides.
2) Authority is "the power or the right to do/claim/obtain/decide something" [and all of the extensions said above]. It may be represented by the entire table above.
3) The GM (and the fallacy) is when authority table assigns too many ownership to a single player (including expectations of the other players) for a too great domain of application, for too much time without the possibility to overcome its authority.
4) GM-Full is just another way of saying that players share the same authority over the same domain of authority application for the entire duration of the game.
5) GM-Tasks are a specification of what the GM usually is expected to do (column B of the table) and how the GM authority is exercised (column C of the table)
6) Credibility is: The subset of authority that allows one (or more) player to propose statements that are considered acceptable (and accepted) by other players without the need to oppose. This definition includes the fact that credibility applies to the person and / or to the statements the person gives but basically says that credibility is related to authority in the sense that it's a specific configuration of the authority parameters (as reported above).

And now in detail:

Quote
My current thinking is first to treat Leadership and Authority in full for their internal properties at their appropriate levels, respectively Social Contract and Techniques

I'd say that Authority applies to all the model and Leadership identifies only the subset of authority that applies to the Social Contract level.

Quote
But each one also mentions the other, in relationship to a problem, specifically confounding them as well as centralizing them, to create the problem called "The GM."

In my view above this is not a problem. The GM is just the player over which most (many?) authority (i.e. rows of the table) are assigned by rules.

Quote
My first concern is how the GM-Tasks interrelate with the four Authorities and the three kinds of Leadership, and whether that's redundant.

They relate through the 'table' above.

Quote
My third concern is whether Credibility and Authority are redundant, and if they're not, how that can be expressed

In my proposal, Credibility is a subset of Authority, meaning that identifies specific types of authorities (i.e. one specific row in the table).

Quote
My fourth concer is whether the four kinds of Authority are totally fucked.

To be honest I think so (even in the new formulation).
But this means another very long post that i'll do later.
In the meanwhile feel free to reply to this.

Pheeeew, done for the moment.
Hope this helps,
thank you
Rob

Hi Rob,

I have no choice but to treat your post with an intellectual back-hand smack. Authority is not a subset of Leadership. Not ever. Whether we give it a new name or not, the whole point of separating those two things into different terms is rock-solid. "Authority" (in quotes because I'm willing to see it renamed or re-integrated with Credibility, depending) is strictly about Techniques. It has no intrinsic social identity beyond that which obtains for any rule in action in play, such as "we use ten-sided dice" or "I spend 100 points to make my character." However Authority is applied to any of the categories we ultimately decide are most useful, it's applied because that's how we're playing this game, procedurally.

Whereas Leadership (a term I'm currently thinking is OK as such) is totally and only social, all about what people at the table are willing to do regarding a certain other person's or persons' judgment, and for what. As such, it is bigger, much bigger than Authority, to the extent that Leadership acts as one of the global variables concerning play as a whole - that's why it's placed at the level of Social Contract and cannot ever be subjected to the logic of rules-debate; any such debate would be conducted within the confines of the group's construction of Leadership in the first place.

Vincent's point about the exact term Authority is worth considering, as it seems vulnerable to readings which cannot separate it from Leadership, specifically a negative form of imposed, subordinating Leadership. I suspect gamer culture reacts to "authority" as a term much as it did to "winning" back when we were debating the goals of Gamist play. For the record, I was and am trying to articulate it as authority toward the fiction, as an accepted and valued rule (Technique) for that group. If a different term is necessary, so be it. But re-confounding it with Leadership is the last thing that needs considering.

All of the points in your post are effectively superceded by this distinction. Authority is not a power or a right. It is a non-problematic procedure, a way to conduct the ins and outs of an important part of the system being used at the moment. I will be very happy to demonstrate this to you if you will go to the Your Stuff forum and describe your experience with playing a role-playing game. Any role-playing game, which you've ever played - just say what happened in the fiction and what happened at the table which established those events. I'll break down every aspect of Authority (again, this is pending re-naming) and of Leadership there to illustrate my current point.

Also, so you know: I did not give you permission to use images here in your posts. I said use links to the images. I love images and diagrams exactly the same way you do, but don't put them directly into the posts - refer to them so people can click on them. I'm beginning to find replying to you exhausting because of this constant need to clarify my posts, making any reply to you effectively a squared effort. Unless you put a little more attention into reading what I write, especially when it comes to the forum logistics, I'm basically going to give up on it.

Best, Ron

Hi Ron.
I'll re-read your post with more attention.
For the moment I will "remove" images and leave the links.
The same I'll do for other posts (no need to write a similar message in other threads).
Thanks.
Rob

On the first and second concerns, I find myself agreeing with Moreno:

Quote from: Moreno R. on July 19, 2012, 02:58:13 AM
the GMing tasks can become a sub-header in the GM page, losing the list of tasks but retaining the concept.

It's much easier to link to "the GM" from any other page or simply searching the word (it's easy, it's always upper-case) that finding GMing task (I would have searched for "GM task" for example), and authorities and leaderships link to each other and to GM. (so, no matter the page you come in, you see all three)

Having a separate "GM Tasks" page seems highly redundant, and the more useful concepts of "Leadership" and "Authority" are more what we're trying to get at with that page anyway. I say do away with it!

On the third concern, I have trouble seeing Authority as a concept distinct at all from Credibility. I also think that "credibility" is a more useful and accurate term for the phenomena we're describing, because of what Vincent said here:

Quote from: lumpley on July 19, 2012, 12:32:31 PM
The question isn't "who gets to say what so that it sticks," but "what should I say, and how should I treat the things others say?"

In other words, just like (I think) Vincent's been saying for years, the important thing to know is, "What is a credible addition to play?" So my vote's for using "Credibility" instead of "Authority" (and just have Authority redirect to the Credibility page).

And now for your fourth concern:

Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 17, 2012, 06:11:56 PM
My fourth concer is whether the four kinds of Authority are totally fucked. I look back on them now and they look idiotic. If you'd asked me before I looked at the original post, I would have stated them differently:

Content Authority for back-story and geography and all that stuff
Situational Authority for immediate features, locations, and circumstances of play (i.e. scene framing)
Outcome Authority for interpreting the system's concrete effects in action (which if you think about it also means interpreting the use of all within-scene Techniques)
Narration Authority for being the person who gets to voice the outcomes and add anything which is not dictated purely mechanically (which in some systems is a big deal and in others isn't)

I mean, "Plot Authority?" What the fuck was that supposed to be? I think these are way better. What do you think?

I don't feel like the Authorities are/were totally fucked, but I think these four particular categories are the wrong way to approach the issue of Authority/Credibility. Here's why:

When we roleplay, we share an imagined space, adding to it with some of the things we do but ultimately with the things we say. And the only things we can ever say as part of roleplaying are statements regarding character(s), setting, situation(s), system, and color. That's it. So to me for anything to be seen as a credible addition to the SIS, it has to involve one or more of these things. Now, I could be completely wrong, and I apologize if I totally misunderstood this issue or am arguing for something that has been shot down in the past, but here are my thoughts on types of credible statements:

As of now, there are four types of Authority:

• Content Authority I see as involving the making of credible statements about the setting, possibly along with aspects of the characters and situation.
• Situational Authority involves making credible statements about the immediate situation (i.e., about the characters' and setting's relationship(s) with each other at the present moment of play).
• Outcome Authority involves making credible statements about the results of the system (and Ron, your phrases makes me think this is specifically in regards to Fortune and Karma mechanics).
• Narration Authority involves making credible statements about the progression of the situation (as well as any Drama resolutions, from what I can tell of your phrasing).

I suggest that instead we talk about making credible statements in regards to the Components of Exploration:

• Character Credibility would involve making credible statements about particular characters, whether it be their components, description, backstory, or actions, and whether the character is considered to "belong" to a player or not.
• Setting Credibility would involve making credible statements about the setting, from locations and items to histories and cultures.
• Situation Credibility would involve making credible statements about the immediate situation; in other words, it would involve how the relevant characters and immediate setting progress in relation to each other. This would cover not only how the situation begins (as in scene framing) but also how it progresses (as in Narration) and ends.
• System Credibility would involve making credible statements about how things are added to the shared fiction. So, for example, credibility regarding DFK and IIEE would go here. (I think this is nearly synonymous with Outcome Authority, except that it would also include character creation/development and reward mechanics, as well as any Drama mechanics.) (Also, I'm not sure, but this seems like the key technique of Social/Procedural Leadership.)
• Color Credibility would involve making credible statements about the inspiration of play. (Again, I'm not sure, but this seems like the key technique of Creative Leadership.)

Okay, I think (hope) that that's all I have to say for now. Let me know what you think, and I expect no quarter, especially if my ideas on this issue are even more fucked than the original ones.

- Luke

About the name "authority".

It's true that it cause a lot of people to thinks in terms of "I have the Power, bow before me" or something like that. A better term maybe is "responsibility": someone at the end has the responsibility to make that decision, to tell that narration, to decide that backstory.

Yes, it's one of the terms proposed by Vincent, but I don't know if he is talking about the same thing. It's only that I think it's a name that fit better for what we are calling "authority".

"Permission" is more tricky. I don't think it can be considered only at the technique level. There are social aspect into that.

Whoa, Luke - breaking Authority into the components of Exploration is seriously interesting and attractive. That had not occurred to me, and I want to think it over.

Here is my logic for the four "levels" I'd proposed in my first post: overall Situation, or what might be thought of Setting which matters; Scene contents; System in action within the scene; and ultimately finalizing small-scale System results in the moment as a wave-front.

This logic is orthogonal to the components of Exploration - for example, if I have Content Authority, that would mean my words are the clincher regarding the factual status of this phrase: Tony the chauffeur shot the old tycoon and Beverly, the not-so-bereaved trophy wife, is concealing it.

Important note: part of game design is refining each level into prep vs. in-play, so effectively we're talking about creation in SIS terms, no matter when the content was proposed, where it's originally spoken, but not yet "in there." The strongest Authority is found when someone makes it happen simply by saying it (all mechanics included in this if any), i.e., his or her proposal and establishment of the content are synonymous.

In most of the games I have played in my life, for example Call of Cthulhu, that content about Tony and Beverly would be an example of that untrammeled Authority on one person's part regarding Content Authority - it's literally systemic that the GM both preps and says exactly that material, and only the GM - inconceivable otherwise (I had to say that for a Lovecraftian game!). Whereas in Dirty Secrets play, it's equally systemic that the proposal of such content is only and ever a suspicion until other and later aspects of resolution do or do not "cement" it as genuine backstory. It's still the same kind of content and the action is still Content Authority.

The same logic, and relationship of the information to the fiction, may be applied to whether the events are taking place in London or Chicago? In fact, the distinction in that fact between those two games I mentioned is equally systemically different: in Call of Cthulhu, it's up to the GM, period, for ever, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad astra. Whereas in Dirty Secrets, an early system step establishes the location based on where the group is actually playing. So the concept and process are the same, except that Tony and Beverly (and what they did) are characters, and London vs. Chicago is about location, i.e., setting.

That's how I was thinking about it, so shifting to an orthogonal view which is component-based ... well, that is different. Intriguing for sure.

To change the subject, I am still up in the air concerning Credibility/Authority, not the name of the latter, but the two as concepts, and unfortunately I think Credibility as a term is benefiting from everyone projecting "it sounds good" into it; i.e., I suspect I'm smelling lack of rigor and comfort zones. Luke, if you could post an actual play example that really shows what Credibility in action means as you see it, I or more accurately, you, I, and everyone, would be able to assess your proposal about that. It would also be a way for others to see whether their take on what Credibility "obviously" means is consistent with anyone else's.

Best, Ron
whoops, hit "post" too soon, with a couple of paragraphs still half-done - fixed

I really like Luke's proposal for Credibility at "Exploration" level. It's easy and simple to understand and fits into the whole design.
Also, hoping not to get another intellectual back-hand smack, I suggest to apply these concepts of authority/credibility/leadership (I still don't catch if we're using them as synonims) at the other elements of the model to check if they fit.

'Authority' (or whatever is called) at "Social Contract" level? Does it exist? What does imply? (Is this what we're calling leadership?)
'Authority' (or whatever is called) at "Exploration" level? Luke has done a very good proposal.
'Authority' (or whatever is called) at "Techniques" level? Does it exist? What does imply? (Ron said in a previous post that Authority is strictly about Techniques.)
'Authority' (or whatever is called) at "Ephemera" level? Does it exist? What does imply?

Cheers, Rob
P.S. I get the smack Ron, but the more the glossary terms move "away from common sense and common dictionary" the less they will be accepted and understood in depth.

Rob, the Wiki exists so that usable terms and explanations can be developed. This thread exists to address that very issue for a specific set of terms. I even made a recent post in it which expresses the same point. Therefore your instruction is not necessary and I consider it patronizing.

To everyone reading this thread: it's time to get to the fucking point. Read what's on the wiki, and what I've posted about its stage of development, for the terms this thread is about. Make your case with reference to actual play, explicitly and in detail. Several interesting ideas have been posted which bear considering. Compare yours with those, or better, incorporate their best parts into yours.

This thread is floundering because people are trying to find terms at the same time as figure out what is being discussed. That might lead to glorious mess of opinion and intellectualized performance art, but it will not lead to a sensible conclusion. Pick one at a time.

Best, Ron

"Credibility" is also incorrect and misleading, as it also puts the establishment of truth into the hands of the speakers, when it is in reality in the hands of the listeners.

-Vincent

Yeah! Resolved: new terms, I think. The next question - and I think before we can really address the terms - is whether we're talking about one thing, or two.

Let's stay with my construction of Authority just for the moment, as I described to Luke: dividing play into nested scales (overall, scene, stuff happening in scene, spoken consequences). We can change it later if that makes more sense. For now, though, keep it in that zone, not per-Component.

Go ahead and call it Responsibility ... or whatever, I don't care. The point is that everyone wants that person to have the whatever, formally via textual rules, or merely procedurally.

So is that the same thing as what Vincent calls Credibility (and is similarly willing to change for the same reasons), or not?

Never mind the damned names. Talk about the it and the thing. Are they the same? Describe real play for me, anyone, and we'll see.

Best, Ron

Hi Christoph,

It's great to see you here!

QuoteRon, would Outcome Authority cover things like who decides when it's time for a revelation (the identity of the masked guy) like Plot authority covers?

Not really. My thinking is to focus on saying how things go, once resolution is underway. If we consider that a scene is full of potential resolution mini-situations, and that scene framing keeps going in a more local way based on what people say their characters do, then a given such situation reaches "crux" point at which we are no longer looking at what might happen, but what is resulting. Think of the point in a D&D fight when the outcome is no longer in doubt - whether it's in the middle of a hit-point grind or when someone fails a crucial saving roll against Dragon Breath. So it's all Situation Authority at a small scale up until that point, and Outcome Authority afterwards, for that mini-situation anyway.

Therefore pacing mechanisms would largely be found in Situation Authority.

Also, your point about rules needs close investigation. Here I invoke the Lumpley Principle, which leads to the conclusion that rules never ever have authority (of any kind) - only speakers. Rules, if they are to be in effect, go into effect only when we agree to use them. So rules can never make anyone do anything, or be consulted as if they did - all such talk is embedded in the over-Technique of "we're using this rule," which when you think about it is anchored very solidly in both System (going outwards to Exploration) and Social Contract (going outwards all the way, specifically in the first-person plural of "let's play this game").

Saying "we do it because it's the rule" is deceptive shorthand for saying "we do it because we agree to follow this rule," which is giving ourselves that authority when the conditions for that rule arise. Therefore - and especially - games may distribute that particular authority either all to a central person ("The GM is always right") or somewhat more realistically expect everyone to understand and abide that rule from the outset.

Best, Ron
edited to fix quote format

I am a little confused by the questions. Ron ask "So is that the same thing as what Vincent calls Credibility (and is similarly willing to change for the same reasons), or not?", but I don't have a current definition of what Vincent calls "credibility"
I already did talk about my thoughts on Credibility in this post http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=11.msg55#msg55, with some other questions, but I don't think most of them were answered in the thread yet.

And Ron's post start with "Yeah! Resolved: new terms, I think. The next question". it means that the questions in the previous post are obsolete or not? It's not clear at all.

My impression is that this thread not only talks about too many things together, but it jump from one to the other with jarring quickness. So I am going to go back to pick up some pieces left on the trail.

1) Authority/responsibility tied to the components of exploration: one problem I see is that it's not really possible to add anything to the SIS that it's lacking even one of the five components. We can separate them as concept, seeing the different components of every piece, but we can't make separate pieces. For example, as soon as you add a character, you add setting, situation, color, e system: if the authorities were of different persons, who could decide about that character?
So we could look at Authority in terms of components of the exploration, but only look: not add pieces to the SIS using that distinction.

2) I still have the same question about the difference between outcome authority and narration authority I wrote in my first post ("I mean, you say "within-scene". What about interpreting session-scale events, like for example the "every session" roll of some Apocalypse Worlds playbooks? And what do you mean with "interpreting"? In case of, for example, Primetime Adventures, narration and interpretation are not the same thing?")

3) My take on Authority division: my impression (but remember that I still have question about how the proposed new division works) is that it depends heavily on having a game structured in: entire game, scenes, resolution withing scenes, narration of outcomes at the end the resolution.
A thought I have when I was thinking about my answer was that there are authorities that don't seems to follow that: the authority given in a lot of games to the Player to decide (complete authority) on what his character is thinking, trying to do, or saying.  A character can try to "do" something for an entire game, from the start, and that still would not be part of backstory.
What about the games where backstory is created by narration (3:16) or by a random system (the drawing of the memories in A penny for my Thoughts)?

4) what is the difference between Outcome authority and Procedural leadership on the conflict? If the specific narration (who narrate the results, the outcomes) is another authority, don't we get these two mixed together?

As you can see, I have more confusion than conclusions to share...

Actual Play time! Sorry for not posting this with my original comment. Hopefully this will help salvage what's left of the ideas worth discussing in this thread.

The best example I have of Credibility and/or Authority at work is a D&D 3.5 session I played a long time ago. It was the first (and ended up being the only) session of a pirate-themed campaign. The guy who was DMing had a tradition of playing power metal CDs in the background during sessions, but I had found a D&D background music CD, and, as it contained a long track specifically recorded for a maritime setting, I played that track instead. The DM was resistant, but everyone in the group was like, "No, dude, this is awesome! Totally sets the mood!" so he acquiesced.

During character creation, one of my friends created a sorcerer he described as "Chaotic Good." However, during play, he frequently pursued his own mostly-harmless-but-still-self-seeking desires, such as getting drunk at every tavern and trying to nail the wenches at every turn. These were mainly things that got in the way of adventuring but were still genuinely fun and added color to our group's interaction (like how my character and another friend's character payed off several bartenders to not give him any drinks). Anyway, we were all having fun and responding to the DM's breadcrumbs for the adventure, when at one point I said, "Hey, your character is really Chaotic Neutral. A Chaotic Good character wouldn't be constantly doing this kind of stuff." And then the shitstorm ensued: we spent the next fifteen to twenty minutes arguing passionately about what the alignments meant (I'm sure no one else has ever been there), with me and a couple of other players on one side and this particular friend on the other. He kept being like "Fuck no! If I say my character is Chaotic Good, he's Chaotic Good!" and we kept being like "Dude, you have no idea what that means, do you?" Eventually the DM stepped in and fiated the hell out of his alignment, saying that yes, he was actually more of a Chaotic Neutral character. My friend was annoyed but piped down anyway and changed his alignment.

The rest of the session went pretty smoothly (on the surface, at least) after that, though we didn't continue that campaign in another session, ever.

Now for my thoughts on Credibility in this example...

First, everyone at the table decided democratically that my background music was a valid addition to the fiction (by setting the mood, i.e., making the Color more vivid).

Secondly, and this is the more interesting part: there were differing views at the table concerning valid additions to the fiction about characters. Most of us at the table seemed to see character alignment as a matter of Color, since it never really affected play (except for our Paladin, but even then it didn't do much). So, just like changing the music, we all pitched in that we didn't buy into the sorcerer's stated alignment as a valid addition to the fiction. For this friend, though, our saying so was tantamount to our saying that his character had cast a spell or tried to kill himself, neither of which any of us would have considered a valid addition to the fiction. And Ron, I know you said not to use my per-Component categories, but I have a hard time seeing this as anything else but a clash of Color credibility/authority (which most of us saw it as) vs. Character credibility/authority (which this particular friend saw it as).

Is that clearer?

Also with this example I see a possible separation of Authority and Credibility as concepts. For every argument, it really was always up to the DM to make the final call on what we considered a valid addition to the fiction, so ultimately we had given him Authority on all matters (even regarding Color; if he would have been a hard ass about playing his metal CDs, we would have let him). This Authority was something that everyone at the table was conscious of and actively acknowledged throughout the night. So while every statement may have been valid (Credible) or invalid, not every one was a matter of consciously acknowledge Authority. Something like a rules vs. principles (or at least formal vs. informal) distinction, methinks.

As for your explanation of Content Authority, I understand where you're coming from and definitely how it's useful to think along those lines (prep vs. play and whatnot), but I have a further question:

Backstories and histories fit logically into Content Authority to me because they're either created before play or at least happen before the situation being dealt with in play. But what about a game like Fiasco, where there are back(forward?)stories that happen both after play and after the fictional situation? Are those still Content Authority, or are they Situational or Narrative? (Feel free to postpone answering this question if you don't see it as relevant to the current discussion.)

- Luke

Both parts of Luke's example (soundtrack choice and Alignment definition) look to me like they were happening at the Social Contract level (Leadership?) and not the Techniques level (Authority).

Rafu,

That's exactly right. (As a social point: please talk to Luke, don't refer to him in the third person.)

I've finally realized that the word "authority" is putting people in the frame of mind which addresses disputes at the table. I roughly divide disputes into two categories: not disastrous and disastrous, but in each case, we are discussing Exploration and Social Contract, usually with various degrees of Murk involved, sometimes with other social things (outside "let's play this game") which are so serious as to obviate the entire process of role-playing. When whatever is being disputed at this level can be resolved, it's going to be through social Leadership, however that's constructed for the group if it's indeed there, and nothing else.

None of which has anything to do with the variable I'm talking about, which is strictly and only about working, functional procedure - Techniques. When I say Authority, don't think of resolving disputes. Think of a smooth-as-silk, how-we-did-it set of surprising and consequential events in play, from start to finish. Don't think of Authority appearing like Jehovah's angels in the sky, flashing and fiery, laying down pronouncements as the prophet has an epileptic fit and wakes up filled with the cosmic truth. Think of it as people driving on the legal side of the road in complete compliance because they like doing so.

This whole discussion will get absolutely nowhere unless this is understood.

Best, Ron

Ron,

QuoteWhen I say Authority, don't think of resolving disputes. Think of a smooth-as-silk, how-we-did-it set of surprising and consequential events in play, from start to finish.

And...

Quote
Think of it as people driving on the legal side of the road in complete compliance because they like doing so.

Just to be sure. So you're naming Authority "the thing" that:

• At Technique level allows all players to say: "OK guys. These stuff has happened exactly as we stated and played it. Now let's go on?" and all the players assent?

or

• At Technique level allows one of the players to say: "Sounds good to me. It's ok.

Rob

Rob, it's more functional than that. No one even says any of those things. They may be present, yes, and conceivably they have to be, but everyone is in agreement regarding them already.

Think of a sport. No one says, "Hey, we've always played that touchdowns are 6 points. But let's make them 4 points!" Or even more so, "That touchdown you just scored is actually worth only 4 points. Why? Because, you know, I feel like saying so." The referee is not there to resolve such things; the referee is there to provide a judgment about stuff we already agree should be done a certain way.

Think of music. No one stops in the middle of a song and says, "Hey, this mark on the page, it means C-sharp, doesn't it? Maybe it shouldn't." No one stops in the middle of a song and says, "Hey, you play this trombone while I take off my pants," and even spoof work like PDQ Bach includes such material as a parody of the system breaking down, rather than actually doing it.

This is really a basic Lumpley Principle discussion: "System is how we agree to make things happen in play," roughly. When people see "agree," they often get confused and think this principle is about resolving disagreements. That's exactly the wrong reading. The operative word in this idea is how. In other words, the people playing are agreeing about how to make things happen, and the question is what procedures they happen to be using.

That's why it would be very useful for you to go the Your Stuff forum and post a little account of some game, any game, you participated in, as long as it was totally non-problematic and totally fun. Tell us who did what in the fiction, and who did what in real life. I'll describe every bit of the Authorities in action.

Best, Ron

I'll try some example in "your stuff" section then. I've had the great opportunity to play 5 times "Pride and Prejudice this weekend, so I've still my fresh memories. Let me know if I'm "derailing".
Rob

So, having the authority is more like being "in charge"  or being a "manager". Would "[Content, Situation, Outcome, Narration] Supervision" do the job? Somebody is there making sure things happen. This leaves plenty of room for situations where the players say what they want to play next, and the GM just rides along, without even really framing the scene formally, just perhaps adding a necessary information (happens every time I play My Life with Master, where the GM is supposed to frame scenes, even requested ones).

A moment in play from an Apocalypse World con demo last weekend I think. I don't remember the player's name, so let's go with Rachel. I'm GMing.

I describe a scorched, dusty landscape, the former site of some kind of industrial agricultural thing. There are a couple of gutted cinderblock buildings, a giant combine harvester or something half on its side in the dust, and somewhere there's an entrance down into massive buried concrete cisterns belowground. Rex the gunlugger is looking for her friend, who is tied to a chair down in one of those cisterns, being menaced by this asshole Dremmer.

"I think you should read a situation," I say, pointing to Rex's character sheet.

Rachel thinks that's a fine idea, so rolls two dice and adds her sharp. She gets to ask me three questions.

She picks "what should I be on the lookout for?" from the list.

"Well, you should definitely expect guards around here somewhere," I say. "If it were you, they'd be in the cinderblock buildings and maybe a sniper out at the fallen harvester? That seems likely."

She agrees that it does seem likely. Next she picks "what's my best way in?" She wants to get down into the buried cistern to help out her friend.

"Oh, there are two ways in, I'll let you decide which is best. Out near one of the little buildings there are some stairs down to some kind of access hatch - you can see the top of the rusted pipe bannister from here. The other way in is straight down through the top, through a drainage grate in the ground. You can just make it out from your position. Either way, you'll have to cross some pretty damn open ground."

She nods. She still has one more question before she has to decide. "Which enemy is the biggest threat to me?"

I make kind of a show of considering it. "The sniper," I say. I'm just making this up as I go, but I say it as though I was weighing out factors known to me. "In fact you catch the flash of her rifle scope. I'm not positive she knows you're here yet, but when you move she will for sure."

The end of the moment.

So! This example is obviously through and through with smoothly-functioning authority. Rachel has the authority to choose questions, based on her roll. I have the authority to create landscape features and a sniper and a stretch of open ground that Rex will have to cross to get where he wants to go. I even have the authority to tell Rachel things that her character Rex is thinking, like "if it were me, I'd put dudes with guns in those cinderblock buildings."

No problem.

But looking for and finding authority in action misses the point of my objection. So does renaming "authority." My objection is that there's a lot, lot more going on at that level than authority in action. Authority exists, but it isn't special, and promoting it to specialness is a bad idea.

The rules didn't just assign me authority, affirm my contributions, they provoked me to contribute. They gave me the responsibility to answer Rachel's questions, and helped me answer in an interesting way, but constrained my answers. By instructing Rachel to ask, they got her to give me permission to overstep my normal authority and tell her what her character thinks.

Rules assign authority, yes, of course. They also provoke, assign responsibility, help, constrain, instruct, grant permission, and so on. Assigning authority doesn't lead or underlie those other functions, it's not special or fundamental in any way. It's just another way to get everybody on the same page.

I think there should be a wiki entry about getting everybody on the same page, not one about authority. I'd call it "assent," and I'd include authority as an entry in the list of ways to get it.

-Vincent

QuoteThe rules didn't just assign me authority, affirm my contributions, they provoked me to contribute. They gave me the responsibility to answer Rachel's questions, and helped me answer in an interesting way, but constrained my answers. By instructing Rachel to ask, they got her to give me permission to overstep my normal authority and tell her what her character thinks. Rules assign authority, yes, of course. They also provoke, assign responsibility, help, constrain, instruct, grant permission, and so on. Assigning authority doesn't lead or underlie those other functions, it's not special or fundamental in any way. It's just another way to get everybody on the same page.

And that's where my view is different.
Explicit rules (as written) assigned you explicit authority that was recognized by Rachel.
Implicit rules assigned you implicit authority that was recognized by Rachel.
Then "authority" alone allowed you to affirm, provoke, have the responsibility to answer Rachel and so on...
I suppose you didn't have the responsibility of Rachel's safety (in real life). This lets me think about the fact the authority leads to a subset of all responsibilities that were in place during your play.
Rob

Why? Why don't the rules sometimes just provoke me? Why don't they sometimes just help me?

-Vincent

Quote from: lumpley on July 23, 2012, 11:30:27 AM
Why? Why don't the rules sometimes just provoke me? Why don't they sometimes just help me?
-Vincent

Not sure to understand completely your doubt. Do you mean "Why rules have different effects on you?" or "Why the same rules do not have the same effects every time?" or ... "what?"

Rules, in my opinion, are only a "source of authority". In that sense they, alone, have no value, because rules, alone, cannot force players. They are just "lines of text" in a manual or "commonly agreed behaviour" which players refer to during playing.
Rob

Rob, are you familiar with the specific rules of the specific game Vincent is using as an example?

Quote from: Rafu on July 23, 2012, 11:54:22 AM
Rob, are you familiar with the specific rules of the specific game Vincent is using as an example?

No, I was just basing over the actual play by Vincent.
Should I be familiar with that game to comment? If so, I'm sorry and I'll fade to black. :)
I was assuming that the actual play was posted for generic discussion, independent from the game.
Rob

Oh, you guys make me so tired. Rafu, when you ask a question like that, say exactly why, and what you really want to know; otherwise, the person thinks you're questioning their right to post. Rob, please don't act like you're being moderated when the person you're replying to is not a moderator.

Back to the point.

Rob: you, I, and Vincent are in complete agreement about rules and what they can and cannot do. I think your concerns are fully answered when I clarify that all those terms he used, permission et cetera, are about what the rules inspire in the reader.

Vincent, the wiki content that addresses your concern about getting on the same page (no pun intended) is currently best stated at the Murk page (http://big-model.info/wiki/Murk). I think when the Situation page (http://big-model.info/wiki/Situation) gets a little more attention, then it will include a description of processes that make it genuinely shared and imagined, with the Murk being linked as the typical breakdown.

I agree with you that what I'm calling Authority is merely one set of techniques involved, but it is also the exact area in which many games fail, both in design and in practice. So I'm isolating it for some necessary terminology. I'm not claiming it's the holy grail or functions in isolation.

Best, Ron

Okay!

-Vincent

Quote from: Ron Edwards on July 23, 2012, 01:55:02 PM
Vincent, the wiki content that addresses your concern about getting on the same page (no pun intended) is currently best stated at the Murk page (http://big-model.info/wiki/Murk).

Quote from: lumpley on July 23, 2012, 02:18:56 PM
Okay!

Ron and/or Vincent, do I read the above correctly in thinking that Credibility/Assent can be thought of as Anti-Murk?

Hi Luke,

Sure. Or rather, all of this discussion of Authority, Leadership, and Credibility (which I confess I am still confused about; to be discussed) is about not playing Murky. Another more positive way to look at it is keeping Situation hitched nicely to all the other aspects of Exploration, especially System. It wasn't about anything else ...

Historically, I am sad that the way you phrased it seems correct, in that Murk has turned out to be the default. In a sane world, your statement would read something like, "I suppose it's possible if X and Y were not obvious to a whole group, unlikely as that seems, that play would enter a state best described as ... let's see, I guess I'd call it Murk."

Best, Ron

Hey Ron,

I get that Leadership, Credibility/Assent, and Authority all help to avoid Murk. I was wondering specifically, and Vincent, this might be something you'll have to answer, is whether Credibility/Assent is the totality of Techniques used to avoid Murk. In other words, is Credibility/Assent simply how players communicate and collaborate clearly about the fiction at the technical level, or am I oversimplifying this concept?

(By the way, I absolutely see how my example was all a matter of Social Contract. That now seems extremely obvious to me, to the point of being silly.)

- Luke

Hi Luke,

I know you directed this to Vincent, but I'll weigh in as a conditional comment: as I see it (now), Credibility/Assent is a feature of, or perhaps even synonymous with, the key phrase in the Model at the level of Social Contract: "Let's play this game." Leadership(s) would be a necessary, modifying, and strengthening feature at the Social Contract level; moving deeper into the Model, the Authorities would be one of the necessary features of System (down in its Techniques) in any particular application.

Which is way more problematic, in RPG culture, than anyone would ever dream it could be for a social leisure activity. Again, in a sane world, I don't think anyone would need to say, "To play this game together, we need to agree to play it together," and then break out each underlined term into a separate host of clarifying sub-topics. But here in our hobby, we apparently do.

Vincent, your thoughts?

Best, Ron

Oh, I'm getting to the point where I shrug and stop trying to say it. One more time?

Murk is when it's not clear what the game permits you to do or expects you to do, right now in the moment of play.

Ron, I believe that you say "authority" when you're talking about clear permission and clear expectations. We agree, I believe, that a game should make it clear what you're permitted to do and what you're expected to do, right now in the moment of play. You keep trying to identify something else that I must be talking about when I say "assent" or "responsibility" or "provocation" or the rest, but no, I'm talking about the same thing you are. I just don't think that "authority" is a good name for it.

I say "my character Mitch picks up the can of peaches." You don't say anything really, or maybe you nod, or occasionally you even confirm out loud by saying "okay" or "what does he do with it?" In all cases, you've signaled your assent; you've agreed with me that Mitch has picked up the can of by god peaches. When I say "assent," I'm talking about this nitty-gritty fraction of a second of play, this tiny piece of barely-counts-as-a-negotiation.

I'm comfy with "leadership" to mean "hey, we agreed to play this game, so let's play this game" and all such social contract level business. I'm definitely NOT talking about that stuff when I say "assent."

I think that "credibility" has all the problems that "authority" has. I don't know why you all keep putting it in my mouth*. It's not my preferred term for anything at all.

-Vincent

*Yeah yeah.

We're getting distracted by terms wrangling, which is the least of our worries and may well be grabbing attention because it's easier than looking at the genuine issues of people playing.

Vincent, I was under the impression that Credibility was your term, back when, so I was pressing you on it. My apologies. You have your revenge because you can just imagine all the vulgar puns I want to include in this post, which I'm suppressing with difficulty.

Let me list the concepts that are at issue for me, in starting this thread.

1. Social interactions and ultimately personal weight in settling them, based on facts operating at that level. In the Coherence thread, you (Vincent) described how Rob explicitly disavowed a crucial part of the Social Contract, "Let's play this game" (my paraphrase). He didn't succeed, because you said "No," and were backed up by the others at the table. A while ago, some friends of mine and I were playtesting a game called Motocaust, which was quite broken, and Jake said, "Let's just do it this way instead," and I said, "No." This is a notable example because typically, no one tells Jake "no," and this time it worked only because we were playtesting with a definite "this is for the Forge, we have to understand this game" concept in action - also a fully social variable. Much like Vincent's status as the author of Apocalypse World is going to carry weight when someone at the table explicitly wants to break the rules.

Currently the term for all of this is "Leadership," and typically it's far more positive than the above paragraph implies (and it's never imposed; that's impossible for this hobby; it can be absent or broken, but not present under duress). There are lots of different kinds which don't all have to be held (given) to the same person. Again: screw the term, call it "things under #1" if you want.

2. Techniques which clarify to everyone at the table (i) the physical locations and current actions of all characters, insofar as these are relevant to (ii) activation of various rules applications that apply to various imagined situations; and (iii) the outcomes and consequences for imagined actions of those characters. "Staying on the same page" is perfectly good colloquial language for it, but in role-playing it's more than that, because it includes both going into fraught situations and coming out of them, it requires multiple people's input which is often contingent, and it is intertwined with many other procedures, e.g. rolling dice for initiative and to hit if we're using the most-familiar games.

Currently the term for all of this is "Authority," which was a perfectly good word for it in the context of the original conversations, but perhaps not so much now. One crucial point about it, really, is that different things may be subject to it, in a given game, in different ways and by different people, and not fall apart. In fact, such de-centralization is a powerful feature of current RPG design. The other crucial point - which I am convinced has gained no traction despite its importance - is that this #2 thing, or things, are totally and completely subordinate to everything in #1; the hobby suffers badly from a delusion that the reverse is true (e.g., the holder of Outcome Authority gains the role of the Leader regarding the applications of procedures, among other such things).

3. A more vague but perhaps still important buy-in and attention on the part of people at the table, especially when it comes to clarity about #1 and #2 above for a given game and a given group of people. I think this is mainly a subset of Social Contract and probably simply a feature of "Let's play this game," and it may not need a term after all.

Currently the term Credibility is at least present in the body of terms, but if I recall correctly, it precedes the discussions of #1 and #2, and perhaps even precedes the general understanding at the Forge regarding Social Contract in the Big Model. It seems to suffer from a distinct case of being whatever the person using it wants it to be. My thinking now is that it's been superceded by the current, more sophisticated understanding of Social Contract, which we can talk about via another thread if anyone wants.

I'm beginning to reach some conclusions of my own regarding the organization of separate applications within #2, and as you can see above, #3 is probably going to fade away pending any further points someone wants to make. Input, questions, and examples are all welcome, but please, no more "hey, let's call it X" posts - use #1, #2, and #3 if you can't stand using the words. Please review the subsets of #1 and #2, though, as they're important.

Best, Ron

Agreed! No quibbles here.

Your two crucial points in #2 in particular: yes, crucial! I'm with you.

-Vincent

Man, what is the lifeblood of murk? It's driven by two things, I think:

1. It's driven by a desire to not have to say exactly what you want to have happen. And maybe this is the desire for the immersive character play experience. The player can't say that he wants his character to be seduced by the psycho drug lord's mistress. Not if it's an immersive game. He just has to hint and hope. And the GM can't say that the wizard's suggestion of a trip to the barrows is a mandatory plot event for the players, because that's an intrusion into their character immersion. So he has to use his other force powers to make it happen.

2. And it's driven by a player belief that giving too much information is to be avoided, that it puts you at risk of the GM's use of his force powers, and of the cruelty of the game system. Playing within the murk is a survival skill.

So we see gamers and designers attempting to use explicit clarity/authority/whatever and explicit lines/veils/IWNAY/NGH as a counter force to murk, but I'm pretty sure it's not the right prescription for the condition. Explicit lines and veils when you play My Life with Master just robs the game of some of its ability to surprise and engage you. Explicit lines and veils is reductionist of far better developed communication skills that we have for social endeavors. They make play feel artificial, workshopped, and tentative. Better solutions possibly would reveal key theme-significant information about characters during chargen and NPCs, so that our intuitions about story arc and theme would trigger our natural communication skills before it's too late.
And explicit clarity/authority/whatever and explicit lines/veils/IWNAY/NGH doesn't really recognize what's actually driving the play culture of murk.

Paul

Hi Paul!

I would add:
3) Players social fears. What can I do in this game without overstepping on the other players? What can I allow? If I allow the GM to say this thing about my character, then what  will happen next?
This is tied with IWNAY play because with this kind of murk in place, IWNAY play is not possible.
(this is taken from a post that I am thinking about these days about Authority, Permissions and Expectations, that I have still to decide how to put in words...)

About Lines and Veils, they are a straightjacked  if used in the broken way some texts suggest ("decide them before playing"), but they are liberating if you use the as game techniques ("If I will go too far, she will call a veil, I don't have to be scared of this")

Hi,

At the risk of getting off topic, and I suppose also recommending that one of us really get into Lines & Veils in a "Stuff" post, my thinking about explicit Lines & Veils rules is that they are trying to force Social Contract through Techniques, which never goes well. I wish I'd been aware enough about this back in 2003 to phrase it the way Moreno just did - that these are social aspects of play which are best discovered with some sensitivity, and utilized with daring.

Regarding these points about Murk ... Paul, you're talking about Illusionism and Force for sure, and I definitely agree with you. This sort of play can lead to Murk being sustained, perceived to some extent as an inescapable environment which can be occasionally exploited, rather than a problem. I suggest that quite a few game texts are written from exactly this perspective. I'm also thinking about groups in which shouting and interrupting are frequently used effectively to manipulate one another's understanding of what's going on, also generating Murk to the perceived benefit of someone at the table. I don't like to think about these groups much, but I have sat among them more than once.

We usually talk about Illusionism and Force in the context of an imposed/expected "GM story," but I also think about Murk in Gamist play, where one might think that Murk-less play is ideal (and sometimes it is), but once into the Hard Core zone of Gamism, it is just as OK to muddle your opponent as it is to out-play him fair & square. Basically, a specific kind of trash-talking or distraction, both of which are considered fully acceptable among a recognizable sub-set of any competitive community. I've seen players continually interrupt the procedure for unnecessary clarification or for working out non-relevant contingent rules applications ("But what if I ...?" "Hey! You could ...") just to keep the GM a little rattled. Sort of like leaning on the pool table, which might get your ass kicked in some venues, but is "only bad if I'm caught" in others. I'm trying to think if I've ever seen a group in which this kind of interaction was unequivocally fun, but not coming up with much.

Is Creative Agenda the key to solving Murk? It might be, or at least it's implicated when we talk about Reward. Reward doesn't happen unless the Techniques of play are meeting, or better, satisfying the Agenda, consistently and without continually repairing the medium. This means, at the Exploration level, that System can go on changing the Situation, and looked at socially, that it's really fun. So one has to look at the Techniques in light of what sort of Reward we're talking about, i.e., that they generate. (The more I think about it, the more Reward links System to Social Contract, very much toward the outer/bigger part of the model.) And I can't think of any set of Techniques that keep play clear of the Murk than the Authorities.

Best, Ron