Authority is totally messed up! And other stuff about GMing too

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Moreno R.]

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?

[rgrassi]

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

[Christoph]

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.

[lumpley]

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

[Moreno R.]

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]

[Rafu]

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?

[rgrassi]

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.



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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[rgrassi]

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

[clukemula]

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

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:

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:

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

[Moreno R.]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[rgrassi]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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