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

[lumpley]

"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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christoph,

It's great to see you here!

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?

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

[Moreno R.]

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...

[clukemula]

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

[Rafu]

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).

[Ron Edwards]

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

[rgrassi]

Ron,

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.

And...

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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[rgrassi]

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

[Christoph]

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).

[lumpley]

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

[rgrassi]

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.

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

[lumpley]

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

-Vincent

[rgrassi]

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