Sharing Power

[Ron Edwards]

Whoasies, my friends. Here I'd thought things had settled down nicely, too. I guess that gasket just went.

Fang, all, let's continue this (the good part of it) on the threads which are now available for that purpose. The questions have been better articulated, more people are providing more angles of perspective, and we need to get away from I-think-what-you-said about what-I-said-about-what-you-said-before.

Enough. This thread has turned into a endless series of epicycles and it must stop now.

Best,
Ron

[Logan]

Where are the threads?

[Le Joueur]

I get it! If the GM is controlling the story, then the players are functionless. They have no impact on anything, because nothing they do affects the sequence of events. All they can do is experience the events. An endless existance of Audience Stance twisted at the sadistic whim of your GM... brrr. Sounds like a Stephen King novel: "Game Master."

In that case, though, why was Fang disagreeing with me?

Um, because you weren't getting it.  The above was precisely where I was with the whole "complete control" thing.  Thank you, Ron.

Seems like everything ended while I was typing, consider it dropped.

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

Er... Ron... how now is "now?" :) I've got a couple of appologies, and a few unappologies in here...

Neat.  First you say that the gamemaster "can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters," but now it's only over the environment.  If you had said "complete control over the environment" in the first place, I never would have said anything.

Er, well, I guess you've got me there. Sorry about that. I should have said that the GM controlls the *presentation* of events. I didn't understand the resolution argument that you were making until it was clarified in the last couple of posts with Ron. In all honesty, I think your posts could have been clearer though. You've been coming across as very defensive, without providing much real information about how you think a shared arbitration system should work as opposed to a traditional one.

Your exact words were, "the GM can have complete control over the sequence of events without impugning on the individual players' control of their characters."  I hope you understand how I interpreted "sequence of events" to include player character's actions.  That's a pretty clever switch to now claim that you meant "the environment," because I'd look pretty stupid arguing with that.

No, it wasn't a clever trick to make you look dumb, Fang. Yes, you may be a bit paranoid. ;) Just a simple misunderstanding... by saying that the players had complete control over their actions, I was assuming that everyone would understand that the sequence of events did not include the characters. Everything would have been much better if I'd just added presentation, or formulation, or something in there.

If you are trying to put the words in my mouth that there is no contention, you're barking up the wrong tree.  My point was it seemed to me that it was unfair to assume immature behavior during natural contention.

I don't quite understand. I was under the impression that you equated contention in a game with immature behavior. See a few paragraphs below.

B) Has an equal social contract that removes the need for a GM

I never claimed that either.

You're right, that was an inaccuracy. I appologize. I should have been more specific. IIRC, your actual claim was not "no GM is needed," but that the players could handle the traditional "system duties" of the GM.

BTW, I distinctly remember you writing "equal social contract," but I don't think that the point is important enough to go digging through all the messages we've posted. So whatever, I'm just gonna drop it. :)

You missed the reference to Frisbee.

Not exactly... that can be taken two ways. Frisbee in and of itself is not a game, it's a toy. (Definitions from "I have no words and I must design.") People *play* games with frisbees that are very competitive... Ultimate Frisbee, frex, is similar to football. I figured that either way it cancelled itself out as an argument. :)

Um, chess?  Hello?  Is this thing on?

USCF tournaments are played with referees. They aren't called that naturally (they're called Tournament Officials, or something like that), but that's what they are.

Why are so bent on only hearing the examples you can find fault with?

I'm not... wasn't... I just didn't think it would be worthwhile to respond to *every* example you gave, when I only needed to debunk your initial example set to make the point. Maybe I was mistaken.

I can't see how my defending years of poor and traditional game design will have any bearing on why you believe that players can't be arbitrators instead of the gamemaster.

Um... so, are you saying that every RPG ever published in which the players could not be arbiters were poorly designed? I find this hard to believe. My doubts about player arbitrated games are pretty simple, and I outlined them elsewhere, so I won't repeat them here.

Yeah, an easy one, whoever is free to (gamemaster or otherwise).  I maintain that the role of arbiter does not need to be centralized.  In fact, in most outside-of-gaming incidences, because of conflict of interest issues, the arbiter must be someone who is not in contention.  You must admit; if the players are not above arguing, then they are not above arguing with the gamemaster.

True, but only to a certain extent. If a player argues with a GM, he's breaking the predetermined social contract in the same way that a GM breaks the social contract by fudging the rules. If you have no centralized arbiter, it's going to be much more dificult to establish the legitimacy of rulings. It's a lot easier for a player to accept a ruling from a GM that he agreed to before the start of the game than it is for him to accept one from Jim Bob in the corner who is arbitrating just because he doesn't have anything better to do at the moment.

Then you do see the point of conflict of interest.  Surely you don't believe gamemasters are somehow 'above' this conflict.

The point I was trying to make is that the GM is unaffected by this conflict, because he has no stake in the game. (This assumes that we exclude some gamist games where the GM does in fact have a stake in the game, and where GM vs. Player is the point of the game, rather than an undesired side effect.)

Why can you not get out of this either 'it is one person, totally' or 'it is all people, equally,' mentality.  I tell you, have only the players who feel so equipped do it.  And have them only arbitrate others who agree to abide by the arbitration.

Ah, now who's changing his position? This is not how you described it before. You used specific terms like "whoever is free" to describe the arbiter. In any case, you still haven't given very many concrete examples of how such a game would actually work. In spite of my skepticism, and your apparent paranoia involving my motives, I really am interested in the pure theory here, and want to see how you're approaching this.

So the gamemaster is right just because you said so?  Why am I not surprised?  I'm sure you are right for the exact same reason.  Even when you say that you are right.

Personally, I have more faith in all participants in my games and I start out respecting them and expecting them to behave maturely.  I hardly think the presence alone of "an authority figure" will avoid all arguments (it never stopped MacEnroe [sp]).

Bah. Irrelevant personal attacks. Disregarded. However, the first point is exact. The GM is right because I (the designer of my game) said so. When players agree to use the game, they're agreeing that the GM will arbitrate in the way that the system outlines. If they don't like it, they don't have to play the game. There are reasons that the GM has a position of authority, and there will be contentions during the game. The whole point of having an arbiter is so that contentions can be solved "by the rules" without eating huge amounts of time and taking away from the actual game. This is why an authority figure is a good thing IMO. It doesn't keep disagreements from happening, but it does cut down on the time spent arguing over disagreements.

If you, the designer of your game, say that no single GM arbitrates, that's fine too. But I have yet to be convinced that this will lower the amount of contention in the game.

Where's Ron?  He's an authority figure; why are you arguing?

ARGH Fang! I'm not arguing! I'm asking for information! I've demonstrated skepticism. I keep trying to explain why I'm skeptical, and why your posts haven't convinced me - and you act like the national guard is laying seige to your house! Come on man! You haven't done anything to remove my skepticism, you haven't even really addressed any of the concerns I have about such gaming. All you've done is attack my own gaming style and disparage my discussion skills.

[Le Joueur]

I too apologize, but I hope this will clear up quickly.  (But if it continues thus, probably not.)

If you are trying to put the words in my mouth that there is no contention, you're barking up the wrong tree.  My point was it seemed to me that it was unfair to assume immature behavior during natural contention.

I don't quite understand. I was under the impression that you equated contention in a game with immature behavior. See a few paragraphs below.

I may not have made it clear.  I mean; contention = normal, arguing = immature.  You can have contention without argument (heated tones, raised voices, et cetera).

You missed the reference to Frisbee.

Not exactly... that can be taken two ways. Frisbee in and of itself is not a game, it's a toy.

Have you ever looked at mechanics as if they were a toy?  That's my design philosophy.  Perhaps that's why you don't understand my preferred gaming style.

I can't see how my defending years of poor and traditional game design will have any bearing on why you believe that players can't be arbitrators instead of the gamemaster.

Um... so, are you saying

There you go putting words in my mouth.  I am only 'paranoid' that you might give others a misunderstanding of my points and opinions.  I don't take any of this personally.

that every RPG ever published in which the players could not be arbiters were poorly designed?

No, those would be the "traditional" ones.  I did not say "years of traditionally poor game design," so I did not imply that all games were both poorly designed and traditional, just one or the other.  And for that matter, I wasn't speaking of every game ever designed; I was talking about only the games that fit the criteria you offered.  I included both 'traditional and poorly designed' to be inclusive, not to imply any relationship between the two.  Semantically, that should be obvious, have you read it differently?

Yeah, an easy one, whoever is free to (gamemaster or otherwise).  I maintain that the role of arbiter does not need to be centralized.  In fact, in most outside-of-gaming incidences, because of conflict of interest issues, the arbiter must be someone who is not in contention.  You must admit; if the players are not above arguing, then they are not above arguing with the gamemaster.

True, but only to a certain extent. If a player argues with a GM, he's breaking the predetermined social contract in the same way that a GM breaks the social contract by fudging the rules. (Yet the latter has been standard design for some games for years.) If you have no centralized arbiter, it's going to be much more difficult to establish the legitimacy of rulings.

I remain unconvinced of this.  That is the sole reason I asked you to justify or explain your reasoning.  I respect the members of my group; that makes their 'rulings' legitimate.  What more do you need in an example?  You still have not explained that to me.

It's a lot easier for a player to accept a ruling from a GM that he agreed to before the start of the game than it is for him to accept one from Jim Bob in the corner who is arbitrating just because he doesn't have anything better to do at the moment.

Because you obviously missed it in my previous post, I did not say that players had to accept ad hoc arbitration.  I said that when they reached contention, the contenders could choose anyone in the group who they could accept the arbitration of.  You have yet to justify why it can be no other than the gamemaster.

Why can you not get out of this either 'it is one person, totally' or 'it is all people, equally,' mentality.  I tell you, have only the players who feel so equipped do it.  And have them only arbitrate others who agree to abide by the arbitration.

Ah, now who's changing his position?

I'm surprised that you think this clarification changes my position in any way.

This is not how you described it before. You used specific terms like "whoever is free" to describe the arbiter. In any case, you still haven't given very many concrete examples of how such a game would actually work.

As I am further clarifying, the players in contention can choose their own arbiter (meeting their qualifications, id est "agree to abide by...") from "whoever is free" who also, themselves, "[feels] so equipped [to] do [the arbitration in question]."  How is this example quicksand and not concrete?

The whole point of having an arbiter is so that contentions can be solved "by the rules" without eating huge amounts of time and taking away from the actual game. It doesn't keep disagreements from happening, but it does cut down on the time spent arguing over disagreements.

You know, you have yet to provide concrete examples of why this can only be the gamemaster.  Have you considered a game where the gamemaster does everything except arbitrate?  A separate player/arbiter could be designated.  That's only one step from empowering a team of separate arbiters (which worked really well in the live-action role-playtest we ran).  And one more step and you have a small group where the players (at least the ones who feel confident of their abilities to do so) are all empowered to serve as arbiters when available and accepted by those requiring arbitration.

If you don't think that is a concrete example of delegating arbitration, then I cannot ever explain it to you, and won't try again.

The whole point I brought this up for was to justify the idea of having non-gamemaster arbiters to keep arbitration from "eating huge amounts of time" that the gamemaster could spend elsewhere.  If anything you have failed to prove that this cannot or should not be done, or would not work.  I never asked you to believe that this was in any way, shape, or form better than any other model, simply that it had merit itself.

If you, the designer of your game, say that no single GM arbitrates, that's fine too. But I have yet to be convinced that this will lower the amount of contention in the game.

I think this is also an attempt to put words into my mouth.  I never said anything about lowering contention, I spoke of reducing arguments; there's a difference.

You haven't done anything to remove my skepticism,

Your skepticism reads like an attack on my preferred way of playing.  I don't know what you're skeptical about, I am not asking you to believe that what I say is of any value to you, just that it is possible some people enjoy it and that it could work.

you haven't even really addressed any of the concerns I have about such gaming.

Why are you concerned?  All I am asking is that you admit my preferred style of play is possible.

Besides, this still takes the question off the point I asked in the first place, why do you believe that the gamemaster, and only the gamemaster, can arbitrate?  (If it has to do with your ideal that the gamemaster 'has no stake' in the game, then we totally disagree and there is no room for discussion.)

All you've done is attack my own gaming style and disparage my discussion skills.

That's because you keep starting off with "so you are saying...."  Try "do you mean..." or "let me get this straight...."  If you want a less heated answer than restate my whole point, as you understand it and then I can explain what you have wrong.  Writing it as though I have said it is what I find insulting.  Cutting it down to single sentences (and editing out the rest) robs the idea of its internal relevancy.  I grow irritated having to go back to previous posts to 'pull' my idea 'back together.'  (Not that I take this personally.)

(You provide one example, 'your style,' and insist that it cannot work in any other way.  No matter what I suggest, you won't address the specific points of my examples in context, that fail in your opinion, simply saying I have provided no examples.  Denying the very fact that I have made examples by ignoring them does nothing to further me clarifying anything.  This is poor discussion, because without asking for specific clarification, there will be no progress.  If your response can avoid putting words in my mouth or leaving questions unanswered, I am perfectly fine letting it drop.)

I have not, at any point, attacked your gaming style.  For the record, basically I said 'more was possible.'  This makes no value judgment on 'what already exists,' unless you continue to believe that I said that all traditional games are poorly designed (I think its clear I didn't, see above).

This all stems from a request for information about why you think non-gamemaster arbitration is impossible?  I can't understand why you are being so defensive.  (I haven't said anything about how you game, nor impugned previous designs as being anything more than traditional.)  Why can't you provide a concrete example of why a non-gamemaster cannot arbitrate and we'll get this over with.

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I am beginning to be the situation of a referee who separates two flailing/clinching fighters ... they appear to be going back to the corners, then fly at one another again. He separates them again, and this time one nods and heads back to the corner in good faith, but the other one flails away. The ref separates them again, and this time the same thing happens but this time the roles are reversed ....

Guys! You're both trying to be (a) polite and good arguers, yet also (b) get in the last word about who-said-what-that-was-wrong. It can't be done. Let's all stick with the (a) part. Geez, this isn't agreeing-to-disagree, this is disagreeing-to-agree.

Best,
Ron