Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible?

[M. J. Young]

Sindyr--Preliminaries:

[*]Welcome to the Forge.[*]Did you read the articles, particularly http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/11/">System Does Matter and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/1/">GNS and Other Matters of Role Playing Theory? A lot of confusion arises on these forums from people using terms and ideas in ways that are not consistent with the common usage here. Getting through those articles will help significantly, in most cases.[*]Although like Ralph I disagree with some of Mike's parsing of The Impossible Thing, he is absolutely correct that you have presented an approach to simulationist role playing that is quite workable, but doesn't really have anything to do with The Impossible Thing. In essence, you've created (probably by social contract) very specific lines as to the authority of the referee versus that of the players. These lines are mainly functional, and should avoid most conflicts--but they are not the lines recommended in most role playing game systems.[*]Ralph is right about The Impossible Thing: you cannot have both the referee and the players determine the outcome of the adventure, but that is what most texts suggest. The referee creates the adventure and guides his players into it; they then play their characters in such a way that they tell his story? And if they don't, he uses the tools at his disposal to push them back on script? Yet they still have full autonomy? It is not possible for the referee to decide what the characters are going to do in this upcoming adventure and for the players to decide moment by moment what they actually do without some sort of illusionism or participationism.[*]It's no good deriding modules because they don't present your play style. Modules in fact are the quintessential representations of how game designers expect their games to be played. If your play style does not match the modules, then you're not playing as the game designers intended. Modules clearly show The Impossible Thing in action. In competition modules, I would wager that a large part of "play" involves players trying to intuit what it is that they are "supposed" to do next. It's like playing a CRPG: the player has to do A, B, C, and D, probably in the right order, to finish the game. The "referee" has established that. If the players aren't interested in A, B, C, and D, or if they want to approach the problem in a different way, or if they want to ignore the problem altogether, the power struggle ensues. Who controls the story? Does the referee, or the players? Modules insist that the players have complete control over their characters but referees control the story. That means that somehow the referee can always force the players to do A, B, C, and D, when they don't wish to do that, without overriding their autonomy. That is The Impossible Thing in sharp relief.[/list:u]
Gee, I wrote more in preliminaries than I anticipated. But hopefully I still have something to add.

I write a lot of scenarios for Multiverser (I suppose that's the spiritual descendant of TORG; E. R. Jones was familiar with TORG, but I am not). We use a lot of different techniques in our worlds. Many worlds--particularly gather worlds--play much as you describe: the referee is given a place with a lot of details, but the adventures are entirely player-driven. If the players want to build and fortify a camp and stay in a place they've correctly identified as safe (or at least, that they've provided defenses against all reasonable dangers in that location), there's nothing really that the referee can do about it--or should, for that matter, as the players have the right to use the time to practice, learn new skills, and get to know each other. If they want to leave their safe area and explore, there will always be things that can happen. If there are intelligent or dangerous creatures in this world, these might come to the characters, might interact with them uninvited, but overall, this is a player-driven scenario.

We also do worlds that are very much story-driven, and that means referee-driven. I'll take Prisoner of Zenda for an example. When the character arrives, he's already on the train headed for Zenda. If he gets off, because he looks like the king (the crown prince, actually) of Zenda, local authorities in neighboring countries will insist on escorting him safely to his own border. No matter what the player chooses to do, he's going to wind up in Ruritania, and he's going to be spotted by the king's top people. After that, as the story unfolds, these people are going to pressure him into the storyline--the king has been drugged, we can only be saved if you undertake this masquerade. Refuse, and Sapt will immediately arrest you on clear suspicion of your involvement in the plot. The world description is filled with contingencies for how to keep the player character on story, or what to do if he goes off story. It's not entirely railroading. It does provide story divergencies, such as if the character takes Hentzau's offer to try to pull a coup and get rid of everyone who knows he's not the king. Yet in the main, it's about telling "the referee's story", with many coercive elements to put the players where they "belong".

I don't think even then it really attempts The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast. Although the referee can make the world highly coercive, he ultimately cannot control the player choices. He can have the character executed; in Multiverser, that's just another way to continue the story--let's try another world. Because death is always an option for a verser (in fact, in a game I'm playing on our forum, not too many days ago, I told an enemy that she could kill me, but I would not permit her to put a slave collar on me) it's not really possible for the referee to take away every alternative from the player in that game. However, most players would think that if the character alternatives are "do what the referee wants or die", that's not a choice. If the only viable option is "do what the referee wants", there's no character autonomy.

You don't play that way. That's good. You've answered The Impossible Thing in essence by saying The Referee Does Not Control The Story. This is contrary to most roleplaying game texts, but it is the way many games are run in practice. It is also not the only solution. Illusionism and Participationism are viable solutions: the referee does control the story; the players are made to feel as if their actions have meaning when they actually do not. A good example of this is one of the start points I use for quite a few Multiverser worlds: I will ask the player which way he is going, but he has so little information his choice is entirely uninformed. He can tell me he is going left or right, or cutting through the cornfield, or moving into the forest, and it doesn't matter--he will wind up where I want him anyway, because really that's where the game starts, and this is all just exposition made to feel like play. Left or Right always appears to be a choice, but in my Game Ideas Unlimited article on that (at Gaming Outpost) I show that it can be an entirely meaningless choice without the players ever having any idea that it didn't matter.

Personally, like you, I never really try to do The Impossible Thing. I let the players decide what they're going to do, within the confines of the situation. It's still the idea people have. Even you seem to have it--you think you've actually made The Impossible Thing possible, when all you've really done is avoided it effectively. Most role playing games define the relationship between referee and players such that they are both in control of the same things at the same time, and fail not only to define who has authority in the conflict but even to recognize that the conflict exists.

If all you're doing is playing, it seems you've got a good way to determine that division of power (or credibility--whose decision defines what). If you're planning to write a game, make sure you clearly state that division of credibility in your text, so everyone will understand how you intend it to work. That will put you a step above most of the major successful published games.

--M. J. Young

[simon_hibbs]

However, somewhere along the way, the players begins making decisions that run counter to completing the adventure goal; in effect, they have come up with their own ending to the adventure, and are pursuing that. Perhaps they decide that whatever the wizard is summoning is good; perhaps they want it to be summoned so they can destroy it; perhaps they would prefer to spare both the princess and wizard's lives by convincing them to marry.

I played in a Call of Cthulhu game with a similar situation once. one of the other players resolved the situation in a fairly imaginative way. When we burst in on the ritual to summon Nyarlathotep, he decalred 'I shoot the girl in the head'. He had initiative on everyone else, and rolled 02%.

Well, at least it stopped them summoning Nyarlathotep (the propper sacrificial ritual required killing her with a particular magic blade).

Frankly though, the fact that the stated description of the roles and responsibilities of the GM and players leads to impossibilities, clearly shows that it is untennable. GMs are responsible for situation, not story. Story is the outcome of events that are determined in play.

It's true that players also input into situation, but their contribution is limited. The way in which the world responds and adapts to their input is still in the hands of the GM. Roleplaying is an inherently collaborative activity, and any definition or description of it must take this into account.

I consider myself to be very story-oriented. I want the results of the game to make a good story, but I can't force it to do so. All I can do is hope that my collaborator's aims are compatible with mine.


Simon Hibbs

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

I don't have much to add - M.J. nailed it for me.

This phrase in particular:

you think you've actually made The Impossible Thing possible, when all you've really done is avoided it effectively.

... does the job.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I don't really disagree with Ralph or MJ, except in the use of terms particularly. See, the problem with Sindyr's understanding is that he would say that what Ron refers to as the "series of related actions" is a story, whereas the "story" that Ron refers to goes by the Narrativist definition. I would agree with Sindyr that one can create something that could be called a story by some defintions by using his techniques, in which the players and GM both have some say. What he cannot do is create a "Story" in the Narrativist sense, becuse to do that requires player control of the elements that would create plot.

This is why the Impossible Thing is in the GNS essay. It refutes the Dramatism = Narrativism + Simulationism simultaneously argument.

And I would ask Ron would clarify so that I can know if I'm wrong or not, and so that Sindyr can see once and for all just what they author was saying, as opposed to informing him of what the author was not saying.

Mike

[Sindyr]

So much to read and reply to, it will be hard for me to keep this coherent as I am now addressing four different replies in this one, but I will do my best. :)

Jonathan Walton:
I don't disagree with anything you said in your reply, I think, but I don't feel that it addressed the heart of what I am trying to noodle around - my fault, I'm sure, for not being entirely clear.  I will try to give a better illustration of what I am thinking below, after this reply section. My ultimate point I think will be that the GM does decide what the players find in the world, while the players decide what to do about it, and neither one exclusively determines the outcome, but both together share in producing the outcome. Check out my example below.

Pagannani:
I found the Forge about a week ago.  I posted yesterday.  In the time between finding and posting, I have indeed read all the articles here, as well as perused many of the threads.
This doesn't mean I understand everything I have read - but that is why I am here, making trouble - er, asking questions. (grin)
For the sake of argument, can we get an example of the Impossible Thing(TM)?  Can someone pull out their Vampire or Mage book (White Wolf) and add here word for word and letter for letter what the White Wolf's version of the Impossible Thing is?  Maybe then it will be clearer what is and is not being said by that passage, and by that kind of passage as a whole?  I would type it in, but I am at work presently and have no access to my rpg books.
However, the basic idea you said that the Impossible Thing is about "the GM controls the world, the players control the characters" is I think not a fallacy, but entirely possible, which I will attempt to show in the example below all the replies, so check that out, please.
Also - separate hp for one's spleen?  This is a game I gotta see! :)

M. J. Young:

[*]Thank you.
[*]I have read all the articles, although as you can see, I still have questions and in some cases do not agree fully with everything stated...yet.  The "Impossible Thing" is the first question I have.
[*]I am not convinced that most rpgs, when advocating the GM as author and the players as protagonists, are not envisioning the balances I have outlined.  Perhaps we can look at and dissect White Wolf's Mage/Vampire treatment of the Impossible Thing, and learn thereby.
[*]I fully agree with you that you cannot have the players have total control of the outcome while the GM also has total control of the outcome - one contradicts the other.  What I am wondering is, a) does each "side" have near total control of their separate domains (apart from the limits of consistency and continuity), and b) with each wielding that control, don't each have an equal say in the outcome of the game? I think (a) and (b) *is* what the "Impossible" Thing in most rpg's really means – and I don't think it's impossible.
[*]I was *not* deriding modules, but I *was* deriding the GM's possible use of them in a linear and controlling fashion.  However, I do apologize for this, I of course believe that as long as everyone at the table is happy with the game and how it is being run, that that is the main goal.  I *do* believe that for myself, and for many other players, being run through a module and its usually narrow constraints is akin to being put in a straightjacket - not much fun. However, I am not saying that I have no use for modules - I find good use for them as jumping off points and source material.[/list:u]

Also, I would like to know more about this Multiverser, do you have any links?
As far as the Zenda example goes - is the GM using his GM abilities to force the players to a place/confrontation/outcome of his choosing?  If so, I would call that railroading and an abridgement of the GM/player divide.
IMHO, a GM is not an architect building a building, using the Players as girders; but the GM is more like a Cook, adding ingredients, and the players are the main ingredients.  But even the cook cannot be sure what the result will be - all he can do is stir and simmer and see what happens.
In terms of asking the player which way he is going, but secretly deciding that the Important Building will be at the end of his path no matter which way he chooses, that's not a big deal, and doesn't rob the players of free will.
However, forcing him to go in the building, when the player chooses not to, *is* (IMHO) railroading and again, a violation of the player's domain.
Also, if the streets of this city are well known to the character, and the character is attempting to get to a well known place, telling the player "somehow you wind up in front of this mysterious building" violates consistency - unless the GM has a good reason, say the player may have been ensorcelled.  But in that case, the player has saving throws and the like...
I would also be interested to see what *you* make of my example below, check it out.

The Example.

The Genre: A modern realistic world, with no supernatural events or creatures, no psionics, no superheroes, just gritty reality.  Perhaps this is a game of corporate espionage and shadowy world dominating groups.

The Scene: The PC (only one PC, for simplicity) is on his way from a meeting he just had in the park back toward his house for lunch. The PC has of late been working on defending his company from a hostile takeover from a rival corporation, the Sandhu Conglomerate.  The Sandhu Conglomerate wants to take over the PC's company because the PC has just invented a way of storing energy into batteries that is 50 times more efficient than any other way before.

As the PC is walking through the streets, the GM tells the PC that he sees what appears to be a street thug grab the purse of an old woman nearby, and that this thug appears to be making a run for it.

As it so happens, the PC is armed with a handgun, and is proficient in its use.

The GM asks the player what his character will do, if anything.

Here is a list of several possible player's choices, and of corresponding possible GM responses.

[*] Choice 1) Player: I do nothing, and keep on walking to my house.
Did the GM want the player to chase the thug?  That (IMHO) is wrong.  The GM should not set up or desire *outcomes*, only *situations*.
Now if the player's dad was killed by a street thug, then maybe a roll is called for to see if the player can resist the urge to get involved.  If it's the same thug that killed his dad, then a roll is definitely called for.
Of course, a roll would not be needed in most cases under those conditions.  The average player if given a chance for revenge against a guy who offed his dad would take it.
On the other hand, if the PC is cautious by nature, or focused on other matters, the player may be disinclined to get involved with random street violence.
If the GM "takes over" the character and forces him to chase this guy, that is a violation of the player's Domain. (again, IMO)
The GM can set up the situation, but the character and his choices are sacrosanct.

[*] Choice 2) Player: I shoot the thug five times in the chest.
Well, this is a violent reaction, but not unpredictable when it comes to players.  And unless the character is a committed pacifist, he has the right to make that decision for himself.
The GM may, if appropriate, ask the player, "Your character has never killed before. Are you sure you want to shoot to kill?"
Ultimately, again, it's the players Domain and choice.

[*] Choice 3) Player: I shoot the thug in the leg.
This is a harder shot to make, and the GM does not of course guarantee that the PC will hit the thug - BUT the GM does NOT "fudge" the results either. Player's Domain.

[*] Choice 4) Player: I chase the thug.
The GM should have the PC make rolls to keep up and perhaps catch up with the thug.
If the thug enters the Sandhu Corporate Building, the PC may break off the chase, not wanting to get involved with his rival corporation.  Or, the player may choose to have the PC follow him in, for a host of reasons.
But what the GM cannot do is force or trick the player into entering the building.  Now, if this is a plot by the Sandhu people, it is possible that in-game the Sandhu *people* will try to force or trick the PC into going into the building after the thug, but that is quite different from the GM doing that.

[*] Choice 5) Player: I concentrate real hard, perhaps harder then I ever have before, and mentally command the thug to stop in his tracks.
As a GM, I go, "Huh?" :)  As previously stated, this game is non-supernatural/psionic/power based.
Therefore, as a GM, I would say, "Sure, you bring the entire weight of your will to focus, and you can almost feel your mental command shooting out at the thug.  The thug, however, seems to feel nothing, and doesn't even break his stride."
In other words, the PC can give all the mental commands he wants, but not only does the character not possess this power, the power is not even compatible with the world.
This is an example of the player trying to usurp the GM's Domain.  This is also not allowed (IMHO).
[/list:u]

So, what have all the above examples shown?
I think it shows that the role of the GM and the role or the players are not naturally in conflict.  As long as the GM limits his actions to that of the world and setting, and the players limits their actions to their characters motivations and choices, the two cannot come into real conflict.  The only time when I can see a problem is when one side tries to usurp the power of the other side in order to force a specific outcome.

The central point is, neither "side" can (or should, IMO) control the outcome of the story.  If the players are trying to do this, they must necessarily attempt to remove some of the world authoring power from the GM's Domain.  If the GM tries to control the outcome of the story, he must be abridging the power of the players to make meaningful choices - the player's Domain.

Now, it is true that it is *easier* for the GM to abridge this line then the players, for the simple fact that the GM *can* use the forces of the world to *push* the PC's into a specific situation or outcome.
However, in truth, when the GM attempts to do this, the players (should they not want to be pressed into the mold) will react against it.  And soon, the continuity or consistency of the game world (or both) will begin to suffer.

This is exactly why I keep referring to both the continuity and consistency of the world (c&c).

If the bad (IMO) GM want to get the players into a certain dungeon, he can start by saying "the party sees an interesting cave", and if the players pass that by, he can says "the party sees an interesting hole in the ground a mile past the cave", and if the party passes *that* by, the GM can say, "the party sees a fissure leading down into the earth"...

Eventually, the bad (IMO) GM can have monsters leap fro the dungeon entrance, overpower the characters (without rolls, of course, or with badly even baldly fudged rolls), and drag them into the dungeon.

I find this somewhat vile.  Not only because it violates the precept that the characters get to make their own choices, but because it violates the game world as well, turning a rich and interesting world of possibility into an unavoidable black hole of a dungeon.

On the other hand, if the characters pass by the original cave, and the GM says, "oh well", and tosses the dungeon back into the gym bag, its cool.

After all, perhaps the players will eventually get it into their heads to explore a cave in another country, weeks later - and then the GM can pull out the dungeon for use.  *Assuming* that this doesn't violate c&c to do so, i.e., the specific dungeon is NOT known to be anywhere else, etc...

As far as I know, regardless of GNS and other concerns, most role-playing games have a fundamental basic premise:
That the GM authors the world and its vast and sophisticated networks of cause and effect, and the Players have characters within this world, that get to choose what paths they will take.

This doesn't mean the Player has total control over the fate of his character - ie, he can't suddenly and with no explanation begin to use mental powers that he has never possessed.

This doesn't mean the GM has total control over the World - he cannot (and should not, IMO) prevent the Players from having an effect on the world by the choices they make.

The story, I think, is the interfacing of the GM's world and the Player's choices.  Does the GM have total control over this? No.  Does the Player?  No.

Do they both have some, non-absolute control over the overall story? Definitely.

I think it's this shared control that is being denounced by the phrase "The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast" - but I think this denouncement is the result of black and white thinking. However, grey exists as well.

Sometimes it's not an all or nothing thing.  Sometimes it is a "both, and" thing.

As far as I can see, it's possible, even *intended* for Players and the GM to jointly control the Story, with neither one's control absolute.

And as long as they do not trespass on the other's Domain, harmony should reign.

-Sindyr

[Paganini]

Sindyr,

You might check out the "Storyteller Heartbreakers" thread. I posted some quotes from Vampire 2nd edition thaty might help.

[Bruce Baugh]

I suspect that one often-unrecognized source of clashing expectations is in the matter of situations and outcomes. I should dust off my old essay about Situationist gamemastering, since it's about setting up situations which will then unfold in a way surprising to the GM as well as to the players, but which can produce an outcome that feels like a satisfying story to the participants.

[Sindyr]

Mike Holmes said:

I don't really disagree with Ralph or MJ, except in the use of terms particularly. See, the problem with Sindyr's understanding is that he would say that what Ron refers to as the "series of related actions" is a story, whereas the "story" that Ron refers to goes by the Narrativist definition. I would agree with Sindyr that one can create something that could be called a story by some defintions by using his techniques, in which the players and GM both have some say. What he cannot do is create a "Story" in the Narrativist sense, becuse to do that requires player control of the elements that would create plot.

Hmm.. perhaps the differing shades and defintions of the word "story" is muddying up the discussion...

What I submit is that neither side absolutely controls the outcomes of events, but both "sides" influence the outcome.  That both the GM and the Players participate is determining the outcomes equally.
[not every minor outcome, I mean, but the larger overall outcomes]

This sharing of the power to influence outcomes is what I think is eminently possible in a equal and harmonious way, and it is this very idea that I think is being denounced in the phrase "The Impossible Thing..."

I think so...

-Sindyr

[Sindyr]

Bruce, I would love to read that. :)

-Sindyr

[Mike Holmes]

Hmm.. perhaps the differing shades and defintions of the word "story" is muddying up the discussion...

Yes, yes, yes.

What I submit is that neither side absolutely controls the outcomes of events, but both "sides" influence the outcome.  That both the GM and the Players participate is determining the outcomes equally.
[not every minor outcome, I mean, but the larger overall outcomes]

This sharing of the power to influence outcomes is what I think is eminently possible in a equal and harmonious way, and it is this very idea that I think is being denounced in the phrase "The Impossible Thing..."

But it's not. That's not even close.

Now, before Ralph and MJ jump on me again, I would say that we'd still have to know more about your definitions to be sure if what you say is what we each think it is. You still might be proposing the Impossible Thing, but I don't think so...

The story, I think, is the interfacing of the GM's world and the Player's choices.  Does the GM have total control over this? No.  Does the Player?  No.

See.

Sindyr, I agree with you, that with that definition of story, you can succeed. But the result of that sort of play seems to some to be more like real life. Which some would not consider a story. It's this more restrictive definition that causes the problem. Again an again, you are not describing the Impossible Thing.

I'd also agree with you that the designers who put such text in their games never intended for the sort of story that the Narrativists refer to neccessarily be the point of play. Or, rather, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

But what's certainly true is that Narrativist players reading this will be dissillusioned. Because they may actually feel that there is some way for the GM to control the moral and ethical dillemmas which the character will face and their outcomes in terms of player choice, and that they can also control that as well. But this is what's not possible.

If that's not a priority for you, as it's not from your examples, well then the Impossible Thing is not something you need worry about.

Mike

[Sindyr]

Ok, I believe I stand corrected on the subject of White Wolf's Vampire.

some quotes from the Vampire book, lifted with help from Paganinni:

Rules:
"They are used mainly to avoid arguments . . . and to add a deeper sense of realism to the story. Rules direct and guide the progress of the story, and help define the capacities and weaknesses of the characters."

Storyteller:
". . . the person who creates and guides the stories."
"The Storyteller describes what happens as a result of what the players say and do, and must decide if the characters succeed or fail, suffer or prosper, live or die."
"[the Storyteller] doesn't simply tell the story; instead, she must create the skeleton of a story and then let the players flesh it out by living the roles of its leading characters. . . . mostly she must decide what occurs in reaction to the words and actions of the characters - as realistically, impartially and creatively as she possibly can."

Player:
". . . you are inside the story and not just watching it. You are creating it as you go along, and the outcome is always uncertain."
"That is what this game is all about: not stories told to you, but stories you will tell yourself."
"Vampire is not only a storytelling game, but a roleplaying game as well. You not only tell stories, but actually act through them by taking on the roles of the central characters. It's a lot like acting, only you make up the lines."
"You decide what risks to accept or decline. Everything you say and do when you play your character has an effect on the world."
"To some extent, you are a Storyteller as well as a player, and should feel free to add ideas and elements to the story, though the Storyteller may accept or reject them as she sees fit.
"As a player, you try to do things which allow your character to succeed, so as to "win the game." This strategic element of the game is essential, for it is what so often creates the thrill and excitement of a dramatic moment."
"Although Vampire is a game, it is more about storytelling than it is about winning."
"There is no single "winner" of Vampire, since the object is not to defeat the other players. To win at all, you need to cooperate with the other players. Because this is a storytelling game, there is no way for one person to claim victory. In fact, Vampire is a game in which you are likely to lose, for it is difficult to do anything to slow your character's inexorable slide into madness. The whole idea is to hang on as long as possible and eke out the most drama from the ongoing tragedy."

Okay, so yes, the words do actually contradict each other, if taken at face value, and maybe they should be taken at face value.

It occurs to me, though, that the above words perhaps should not be taken at face value, for two reasons:
Maybe the writers of those sections were "dumbing" it down for rpg neophytes, and in the process, itroduced apparent contradictions.  Perhaps behind the "dumbed-down" prose, a consistant framework looms?

Or, maybe, being an artsy bunch, the writers forsook a certain amount of clarity and precision for flowery and artistic ways of describing the roles of the players and GM.
Or maybe both?

Of course, it is entirely possible that the writers *are* advocating the schizophrenic approach they state.
They do state: "The Storyteller describes what happens as a result of what the players say and do, and must decide if the characters succeed or fail, suffer or prosper, live or die." ,
as well as, ". . . you are inside the story and not just watching it. You are creating it as you go along, and the outcome is always uncertain."  and "That is what this game is all about: not stories told to you, but stories you will tell yourself."

I dont know - it's not really clear.

I will have to go back and look through my vampire books, as well as my other rpg's to see how the other books present the "(Im)possible Great Thing"

But I do think we need to keep in mind that these passages are often pitched to rpg newbies, and are put in overly simplistic terms.

Thanks.

-Sindyr

[Valamir]

This is really getting messy, and it doesn't need to be, because its not that hard of a concept.

Mike, again I think your bringing in of different kinds of story is not accurate.  "STORY"  or the definition of is NOT whats at stake in the Impossible Thing.

I don't care WHAT definition of story you're using...literary premise based or simple chain of causal events...doesn't matter.  By any definition of story the impossible thing is impossible.


The issue is not one of story...its one of CONTROL.

Lets break it down, and leave story out of it.

The Impossible Thing states:

The GM has total control of "X".
The Player has total control of "Y"

But Y is a subset of X.  Therefor this situation is NOT POSSIBLE.  I don't care what X and Y are...its just plain not possible.

Go ahead and substitute World for Story...same thing.  Characters are part of the Story, Characters are part of the world.  Its Impossible for the GM to control the entirety of the Story or of the World...

Ahhh...so the solution is simple...the GM controls all of X except for subset Y...problem solved right...nope...this is in fact the problem itself.  Because game text after game text ASSUMES this is possible...states it as an outright goal (and if I were home, I could quote some text).

But its not...and the reason its not is because these games don't define where the character ends and the rest of the story / world begins.

The character can interact with the world...they can kill NPCs they can blow up buildings they can do lots of stuff...so the characters are changing the world, and the players control the characters...there for the players are changing aspects of the world outside of their own character.  Where does the character end and the world begin...

There is no definitional issue at stake here.  It all boils down to authority.  Who has the authority to say what and when.  The reason the impossible thing is impossible is because it grants full authority to two different parties and that authority overlaps.

The solution to the Impossible Thing is to have clear demarkations and boundaries to define who has the authority and when.

Sindyr, all of your text to date is not proving that the Impossible Thing doesn't exist, or that you are successfully playing the Impossible Thing.  What you have done is come up with a means of doing for you and your group what the game rules itself don't do...specify that authority.  Where in your group is the GM willing to cede authority granted to him by the rules...where in your group are the players willing to cede authority granted to them by the rules in order to reach a point where at any given time only 1 party has the authority.  You've successfully negotiated the overlapping authority in a way that is functional for your group.

The rules don't do this...the rules don't acknowledge this as necessary.  The rules believe that you can have your cake and eat it too.  That's Impossible.  You've found a way to work it out.  You're not DOING the impossible thing...you're avoiding it (which is a good thing).

One final note, because someone is going to say "wait the rules do do it, my rules very clearly say 'The GM is god and his word goes", so doesn't that mean that the overlapping areas of authority are already being adjucated.

Answer: No.  This rule is by and large a completely meaningless one.  Because it essentially has revoked all authority from the players all together, and if actually enforced would turn all characters into puppets.    It turns the players authority into authority at the whim of the GM, which ain't any kind of authority at all.  

It is ultimately the same situation...basically the overlap is dealt with simply by removing all authority from the players...but then again the text that says the Players have control of the Characters can not exist simultaneously with the text that says the GM has ultimate authority over everything.

[Valamir]

Sindyr:  Cross posted with you.  I think you'll find text like that over and over in game books.  

Its certainly hard to postulate what they meant, and maybe they are oversimplified for neophytes...but...

I think there is substantial evidence from reading the rest of the rules that this is not the case.  The rules are written as if it were in fact possible...in fact the rest of the book simply takes for granted that this contradiction is the way things work.  

Now this is a harder thing to prove because there is no single passage to point to and say "there...that's what it is".  Instead it is the LACK of such passages that demonstrates the point I'm making.  If the introduction is just a dumbed down summary, where in the rest of the material is the contradition addressed.  Where is the specific discussion on the boundary and where the respective arenas of authority are?  Surely in the GM's guide you wouldn't have the limit of being "dumbed down for newbies"...its the GM.  But such discussions are very rare.

I can't say for absolute certainty that in no version of V:TG or any other game where simliar language exists (and there are alot of them) that there isn't a passage or turn of phrase somewhere that could be interpreted as addressing this issue.  But what you'd be hard put to find is a section that puts the issue in black and white and frames it.

Most often the issue is left for play groups to do what you have done, and work it out for yourself, a process which is rarely painless.  I'd be very surprised (i.e. not disbelieving, just surprised) if your group has never had a game interrupted by a player GM spat, that ultimately boiled down to who had the authority...and the reason such arguements exist is because the rules give the authority to both.

Edit to add:

Its kind of like a sweepstakes where they're giving away $1,000,000 but they announced two winners.  I got a notification that I won the million, you got an announcement that you won the million.  Since there's only 1 million total, we both can't have won the million...but then the contest runners decide to let us work it out for ourselves.

I want the full million because I'm entitled to it.  You want the full million because you're entitled to it (That's the Impossible Thing).  If we don't work something out niether of us get anything (play stops) so ultimately you and I will come to an agreement (split it 50/50 say) that allows us to move forward...but niether got what was promised to us.

[Sindyr]

Mike, you write some very interesting and thought-provoking ideas. :)

Mike Holmes wrote:

Sindyr, I agree with you, that with that definition of story, you can succeed. But the result of that sort of play seems to some to be more like real life. Which some would not consider a story. It's this more restrictive definition that causes the problem. Again an again, you are not describing the Impossible Thing.

So, maybe the Impossible thing rests on three legs, not two?

[*] That the GM controls the world.
[*] That the Players control their choices.
[*] The the goal is the creation of a standard-type story, with a beginning, middle and end, similar to what you read in books or see in films.
[/list:u]

Given all three of those, I can see a definate contradiction.

However, as you rightly identified, I do not believe that the third is tenable or possible within the confines of a GM/Player dichotomy.

So I throw out the idea that an rpg game is "supposed" to generate a coherent simple story, and instead cherish what it *does* generate - not a simple narrative, but a *melange* of many narratives, interweaving, starting and stopping.  A *reality*, as you noted.

Which is pretty much all you can *get* from an rpg, I think...

Mostly.

I'd also agree with you that the designers who put such text in their games never intended for the sort of story that the Narrativists refer to neccessarily be the point of play. Or, rather, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

What sort of story do Narrativists refer to?

But what's certainly true is that Narrativist players reading this will be dissillusioned. Because they may actually feel that there is some way for the GM to control the moral and ethical dillemmas which the character will face and their outcomes in terms of player choice, and that they can also control that as well. But this is what's not possible.

I am sorry, but I did not understand the above paragraph at all - could you explain?

Thanks.

-Sindyr

[Marco]

I see no contradiction in this:

That the GM controls the world.
That the Players control their choices.
The the goal is the creation of a standard-type story, with a beginning, middle and end, similar to what you read in books or see in films.

I've played in and run games like that. I've written some of them up here. I do not belive the above three points address the impossible thing at all *unless* you subscribe to a specific definition of the use of the word 'creation' in the third point.

What *is* impossible is that if you define "story" in a certain way, and "creation of story" in a certain way then, yes, you get a self-contradictory situation (and when you don't use the tasty words like "creation of story" it becomes an astonishingly non-contraversial no brainer). The idea of the impossible thing seems often to studiously avoid taking responsibility for interperting the game that way.

-Marco
[ An even worse problem (and one that Val hit with his analogy) is that the RPG "media" isn't much AT ALL like print or film or acting or any of the other things it's described as. Just as Valimir's analogy with the million dollars is flawed (I see it as if it's you and your wife who win the lottery and you're complaing you have to cooperate with her). There's yet to be a good way to describe the social contract and directoral mechanics of games that doesn't degenerate into a horrible terminology quagmire.  ]