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

[Rafu]

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

[rgrassi]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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. I think when the Situation page 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

[lumpley]

Okay!

-Vincent

[clukemula]

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.

Okay!

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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[clukemula]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[lumpley]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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

[lumpley]

Agreed! No quibbles here.

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

-Vincent

[Paul Czege]

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

[Moreno R.]

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")

[Ron Edwards]

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