The Impossible Thing

[John Kim]

Given your description, you as GM did not in any way interfere with the players' decision-authority. That's not to say you did nothing; you played too, you introduced stuff which happened, and so on. But, in my reading of your post, you didn't tell them how to feel about it, what to do, or how to resolve the conflict.

I know you don't agree about this (or I think you don't), but based on your description, you played bass. The setup was the "four"-count that bassists often provide. The players played the melody, and what they said (so to speak) was their own.  

Well, I find that the bass analogy really isn't that meaningful to me -- but it apparently is to some people.  If you say it's playing bass, I accept that that is your terminology for that sort of game.  What I get from this is that you feel the important issue is the moral slant which the GM puts on things.  Thus, if the GM has a "right" method to solve the conflict in mind, it is still #1 -- even if the players are free to choose the wrong method and suffer.  Would you agree?

In my own terminology, I considered this campaign roughly a 50-50 split: i.e. the first half of the session was pre-plotted, while the second half was totally open.  In contrast to this, there are games I have run where the players have greater control over what direction they take -- like the Water-Uphill game I talked about in an earlier, which was totally unplotted and controlled by the players.  On the other hand, there were games like my "House Rules" Champions campaign which were rather more plotted.  

In practice, though, most of the Star Trek sessions were more GM-dominated than 50-50.  I think in part because of the ambiguous nature of the questions, the players' answers did not have great force.  Thus, the impact of the scenarios was more in the question than in the answer.  In a real original-series episode, it would wrap up with Kirk giving a speech about what the real meaning was.  However, in practice the PCs rarely took a strong position like that.  

The session I described was a good example of that.  In play, the session was dominated by the character of Vilid (the NPC).  In retrospect, I found that ultimately it was his story -- his hero's journey of taking on the Sky Demons and succeeding.  Which is of course the whole point, morally: the Federation were not the ones who should decide right or wrong here.  The story of the PCs was a subplot of their realizing that this was not their story.  On the other hand, that was their choice.

[Sylus Thane]

Ok, I went back and read Sindyr's original post and a couple things struck me as kinda funny, especially as you read his examples.

To define things as they came across to me off of what he wrote,

GM/Author- the person in charge of keeping track of and organizing the events of a world in a continual cause and effect manner as they are manipulated by the players/protagonists.

Player/Protagonists- an occupant of the world in question controlled by a player that has direct and constant effect on the world at large based on their decisions or non decisions.

Now when I looked at Ron's first post, he lays it out pretty clear, Bruce does as well in his own fashion.

But here is where everyone seems to get all up in all arms. Jumping up and down saying "It's the impossible thing! Don't you get it? The way texts put it down it just can't work that way."

To pick on Valamir for a second, (sorry Valamir)

The reason the Impossible Thing is impossible is because the game text directs BOTH the GM and the player to make the choice...which by definition is impossible. You can negotiate and discuss, but ultimately someone has to make the call.

And to this I say.....DUH! Of course someone has to make the call, but it can't always, and isn't always the player. Just like in reality sometimes you make the decision and sometimes it is made for you.

So now I do answer Ron's question of can the Impossible thing be achieved and can Sindyr and bladamson get the answer they desire?

I would say a resounding hell yes! Sindyr has probably put down the best description of the responsibilties of a GM and their interaction with players that I think I have ever seen, whether he knows it or not.

I think people tend o jump on this topic because it subconciously irks their free will. To use Valamir as an example again (sorry again)

You can't look at the fiction you like to read in isolation. This is a roleplaying game. In fiction the author is making all of the choices for everyone. So take a favorite situation out of one of your favorite stories and pretend its a roleplaying game, and you're the character. Now you know the choice that the character made in the novel...what is the full range of choices the character COULD have made if this situation came up in a game. Notice how some of the choices would have taken the ultimate story to a completely different place.

No imagine you're playing this game and you have those choices before you. Who makes the decision as to which path the character goes down.
You...or the GM.

Does your character bend to fit the GMs vision. Or does the GMs vision bend to fit your character.

Someone has to bend...that's all the Impossible Thing is about.

In this example it seems to me, please correct me if I'm horribly wrong, Valamir looks upon Author as an ultimate control persona that takes away from his control of his character as a player. Hence his example of who bends or whose vision is followed. And in a way he is right, but in a way he is wrong and so is everyone else. Most probably in the way that we look at GMing and misapplied the term author to it.

As in Sindyr's post, a GM isn't really an author, but a coordinator and orchestrator of world events as effected by the players, protagonists/ characters.. Other than that they don't do anything else other than present opportunities for the Players to make decisions for or against. Now granted there are bad GMs out there guilty of railroading because they felt a player made the wrong decision and messed up their idea, but I think it's because they never truly considered their Responsibilities as a GM and what it is they are supposed to be keeping track of and doing.

In the end I think we must reconsider the term of author as applied to GM's and look more to what the Responsibilities are. The use of Author in my mind is misapplied when you put in conditions of stance, whose turn is it etc. Overall the whole group should be considered the Author and the Story not finished until they are satisfied.



Wow, I wrote a novel, hope I didn't babble incoherently, hope it answers the question and helps some.

Sylus

[JSDiamond]

Well, my GM Herbie can make any scenario fun....  [ahem]

A 'good' GM transmorphs the characters' decisions to fit the story.  This maintains suspension of disbelief for the players who do not want to spoil the adventure.  In a 'good' group the decisions are shared.

Other wise you have either:
1.  So-called 'dungeon-breakers' (players whose characters run wild and wreck the adventure in an effort to gut it for treasure and exps.

2. A-Hole railroading GM.  

Dragongrace's door example is perfect.  A good GM would mentally change from door 'A' to door 'B' to be the significant plot point.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

Jeff, change "a good GM" to "I as a GM" or "the GM I want to play with," and you're all set.

John, one teeny difference I want to emphasize: the GM doesn't even have to be providing the moral slant, or issue. If that itself evolves out of the players' choices as play goes along, that's cool too. Either way. Contrast (1) Sorcerer and Hero Wars, which pretty much demand that it evolve out of actual play or is agreed upon beforehand, with (2) Legends of Alyria and Orkworld, in which group construction of the moral issue is required, even before characters are made.

Joe, that was nifty, and hey Sylus, I really liked that post.

Still hoping that bladamson and Sindyr show up.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

To pick on Valamir for a second, (sorry Valamir)

The reason the Impossible Thing is impossible is because the game text directs BOTH the GM and the player to make the choice...which by definition is impossible. You can negotiate and discuss, but ultimately someone has to make the call.

And to this I say.....DUH! Of course someone has to make the call, but it can't always, and isn't always the player. Just like in reality sometimes you make the decision and sometimes it is made for you.

Exactly Sylus.  That is 100% exactly correct.  Problem is the gaming text in question (the one that is found so frequently and which we have taken to refering to as the Impossible Thing) doesn't say this.

It doesn't say sometimes the player makes the call and sometimes the GM makes the call.  It says the player ALWAYS makes the call, and the GM ALWAYS makes the call.  Which is why its impossible.

Now if it just came right out and said it like this we wouldn't be having this discussion because everyone would look at it and say..."ridiculous, that's not possible".  But it isn't said this clearly, its couched in all sorts of flowery stuff.  Only upon careful examination and parsing out what's really being said do you see that what it's saying is in fact just as ridiculous and just as not possible.

I suspect that the reason some people are having the hardest time getting a grasp on this is because they've never really read this text in detail.  They think that they're playing the way the game says for them to play and it works, therefor they can't understand why we're saying its impossible.  But in fact, they aren't playing the way the game says to play, no one is, because what the game says is impossible.  They're instead playing a way that works  (Take "the game" here to mean any game who's instructions on how to play incluse Impossible Thing-esque text).

In this example it seems to me, please correct me if I'm horribly wrong, Valamir looks upon Author as an ultimate control persona that takes away from his control of his character as a player. Hence his example of who bends or whose vision is followed. And in a way he is right, but in a way he is wrong and so is everyone else. Most probably in the way that we look at GMing and misapplied the term author to it.

I'd comment on this, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, so I'll just try to clarify what I was trying to say.

The point I was making was that for purposes of demonstrating the Impossible Thing, one has to look at the full range of all of the possible choices the character in the literature *could* have made, not just the one that the author (meaning here author of the book, not author stance) made for the character.  What could that character have done.

Then evaluate who made the choice.  It could be the player made the choice, it could be the GM made the choice.  The implications of this are very important to various aspects of GNS but are not important to the discussion of the Impossible Thing.  To understand the Impossible Thing is to understand that regardless of whether it was the player or the GM...it was someone.  The Impossible Thing occurs when the rules do not specify who that someone is, or even mention that determining that someone is necessary.  The Impossible Thing occurs when the rules give full authority to both the GM and the Player at the same time.  Joe hit on this again above.  Its impossible not because its too hard to do, its impossible be logically it just doesn't work.

Why is this even an issue?  As you say "duh".

1) it is an issue for play because often much of the dysfunction of a play group can boil down to the player and the GM fighting over whose turf such a choice lies.  Who gets to make the decision "Its my character I get to choose", "No its my world I get to choose".  Even if you belong to a group who has established certain parameters for your personal play (the way Sinbyr has indicated) there can still be this tension underlying play.  According to the rules...both the player and the GM in the above arguement are right.  Both have the right to say, and therein lies the problem.

2) it is a potentially liberating realization for game designers.  In every RPG ever played regardless of GNS mode, lite vs heavy or any other metric, there exists some mechanism by which the interaction of the GM and player results in a choice being made.  We know this is true because games don't get stuck in infinite decision loops, a decision is made and the game moves forward.

What's important here is that games which rely on "Impossible Thing" text do not provide any guidance for this mechanism.  The decision still must get made (and does) but relies entirely on the social contract of the players to sort out.  Realizing that the Impossible Thing is in fact Impossible then opens the door to game designers to scrap such useless, contradictory text and design more explicit guidance or even outright mechanics to cover this.

For instance, Donjon is very explicit about the facts.  The winner of the roll (Player or GM) can decide 1 fact for each success.  The loser of the roll (Player or GM) gets to fill in all the rest of the details.  In this way the interface between what the player wants his character to do and what the GM decides happens in the world is explicitly mechanically mandated.

Is any of this making sense or am I talking myself in circles?

[Mike Holmes]

On the subject of text. The "Impossible Thing" becomes a problem, precisely when players who (unlike Bruce who does not have this problem), interperet the text of such a game to mean that the Impossible Thing can occur. Basically that some players want to believe that their characters decisions are going to be creating the "story" in the sense that Ron states. But the GM reading the same text thinks it's his job. So he doesn't release this power to the players (or at least not in the measure that they'd like).

Resulting in one of two problems eventually. Either the player is dissapointed with the lack of actual power, or the player takes power, and goes against the plot. At which point, the GM either has to hand over power (in which case Narrativism occurs), or dysfunction occurs. You know the scene, the GM needs for the characters to go into the dungeon, the players want to go elsewhere (in this case for some "story" based reasons), and the GM says, "It's dark now, and you hear the growls of Hellwolves that will most certainly eat you if you don't go in the dungeon." Or even more subtly, "OK, you don't want to go see Bobby G? Well then what do you do?" essentially the Force by threat of boredom.

Note that the broadest description of Illusionism, is the GM creating a plot from character actions and leaving them thinking it all occured because of their decisions. The Illusion is that the players have the power, when, in fact, the GM has the power. This form of technical Sim can satisfy the player who wants his decisions to to create the story. But not in all cases.

Bruce, you don't care about the sharing of power that these players desire? That's fine. Nobody expects anyone to have to share their concerns. But it would be a nice nod to them to include in the text of the next game, something more like, "It's the GMs job to create the story, and the Players jobs to play out their parts in it."

As has been said repeatedly, GNS is not an all encompasing theory of what RPGs are about. It is one way of classifying RPGs to adress one sort of potential problem. There are only three ways to play from a GNS POV. But that doesn't mean that there aren't subcategories, or entirely othe ways to describe RPGs. All saying that there are only three modes means is that they are mutually exclusive.

And that's the point of The Impossible Thing. You can't have a decision that's simultaneously Sim and Nar. That's what it's all about.

If I wanted to be crass about it, to make the point, I could point out that the Impossible Thing was promulgated to support the idea that Narrativism is it's own thing. That is, it's part of a circular argument that begins with the assumption that there are players who want control of certain sorts of decisons.

The whole theory would be pointless except for one fact. The assumtion is correct. Basically there have been a large number of disenfranchised players for a long time because of the lack of admitting their existence, or more to the point that they aren't being catered to. As long as the texts like the ones in early WW products stated that these players could be satisfied by these games, there was no way that they actually were going to be recognized as different than Simulationists.

So from one POV, it's all a political outcry from a minority who wants to be recognized. And hell, why not? If they want something different, then that just gives us that much more opportunity to create games that cater to them.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

I've separated this from the post above for clarity.

The GM wishes the player to enter the door and go down the stairs to continue with the GM's planned plot. Plot A. (A)

The Player wishes the character to turn left walk down the hall and follow the Player's planned plot. (B)

both A and B cannot happen at the same time. (If it does then the GM and the player are in two different games.) Either A will take precedence or B will take precedence. Because both cannot happen at the same time, it is a logical impossibility.

I have to make just one little weird technical adjstment.

Actually, RPGs being the strange things they are, you can have both things occur. The GM says, "You go down to the dungeon." The player says, "I go to town." They can each continue their own version of events indefinitely, thus creating two in-game "realities". This would be considered dysfunctional by most groups, but that makes it far from impossible. Further, some weird group might see it as a sort of postmodern style and allow it. The usual contract is that all participants must agree on what is happening. But that's not the only possible model.

So, to be really nit-picky, The Impossible Thing is only impossible under the standard contract that, well, everyone I've ever seen play, plays. I doubt that the exception would be really palatable to most players.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Mike, you're not helping. I really don't want nuances and local personal variants. In fact, I'm going to ask everyone except for bladamson and Sindyr simply to stop posting to this thread.

Guys? Any questions, concerns, whatever. Go by my first post, above, and tell me what you think.

Best,
Ron

[Sylus Thane]

and hey Sylus, I really liked that post.

Thanks Ron, I try and be coherent most of the time, hopefully here is some more.

Throughout the replies, as Valamir points out, it is because of the text at the beginning of Most RPG's, specifically Vampire, that the Impossible Thing exists in the first place because of contradictory examples of the roles a GM and a Player have when in a game creating a story. Which creates responses like this...

What's important here is that games which rely on "Impossible Thing" text do not provide any guidance for this mechanism. The decision still must get made (and does) but relies entirely on the social contract of the players to sort out. Realizing that the Impossible Thing is in fact Impossible then opens the door to game designers to scrap such useless, contradictory text and design more explicit guidance or even outright mechanics to cover this.

Now, for some people to explain this they resort to explanations containing GNS terms like this one...

And that's the point of The Impossible Thing. You can't have a decision that's simultaneously Sim and Nar. That's what it's all about.

Now no offense to you Ron, but I think when we get into this particular area of discussion GNS actually furthers the problem instead of helping solve it. Not to say they aren't well thought and well written essays but people have gotten into a tendency here on the Forge to simply think in those terms. Which is not a bad thing considering GNS is a founding reason for the creation of it.

But, the main problems lies in that it is generally concerned with play styles, IMO, which leads to confusion, sometimes outrage, when a topic pops up that does not neatly fit into a G, N,, or S mold. I don't think Forgites do this necessarily on purpose mind you, but subconciously as they have become comfortable with it. Similar problems have arised in constant "What are people supposed to do in your game?" questions that are flabbergasted and sometimes infuriated by answers of "Whatever you want."

I think if you look at Valamirs quote above you can see, although I'm surprised he hasn't outright said it, that the cause of the Impossible Thing is a design issue. One that for the most part has been subconciously fixed by most gamers through common sense but can still leave new gamers horribly confused when it is covered in flowery useless prose that does nothing but cover the problem in obscure language usage.

Now I see Sindyr replying that it truly isn't an impossible thing because he has already subconciously fixed the problem. Valamir says it can never be fixed when left as it is in current and future RPG texts when describing the interraction between GM's and Players.

I think if we all take the time to look back a Sindyrs original descriptions from his first post I think we could can find the most easily understandable description, using everyday terms, (GNS totally aside as you want it Ron for this thread), that any Game could hope to use to describe the social contract between players and GM's.

In my opinion a lot of the original question and it's answers were lost in GNS terminology and referencing. Which I think Ron is why you put in that you'd like people to refrain from doing so.

I'd really like to know if I nailed the original question and answer to this because I too think it is very important.  Especially when trying to best define the Contributions and Responsibilities of GM's and Players.

Sylus
wow another novel, go me, boy my fingers are tired

[Sylus Thane]

Sorry Ron, we crossposted, I didn't see your last comments until mine was sent.

Sylus

[Sindyr]

I am still here, and I appreciate the effort...

Let me get my thoughts in a row, and I will post.

-Sindyr

[bladamson]

Still hoping that bladamson and Sindyr show up.

Hah, me too.  I still don't think I understand all the points of view that are being put forth.  But I think there's enough documentation here for me to come to an eventual understanding, it just might take a bit. :)  And not until tomorrow anyway, LugTrek this evening, code to write, and (ugh) day job and class.

Don't want to open my big mouth again on the subject until I can either (1) defend my point of view or (2) have changed my point of view due to a better understanding of the material.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi guys,

Thanks for posting! I want to emphasize that threads here are considered useful only insofar as people are learning, communicating, and trying to see one another's point of view - and ripping into ideas, not one another.

So that you're still with it, in one of our ... less successful ferments, shall we say, means a lot to me.

Everyone, it's time to give this thread a rest, until we get the feedback from the folks who count. Remember that any comments of yours are irrelevant until you know where Sindyr and bladamson stand relative to the issues.

Best,
Ron

[Sindyr]

To start off, here's a quote from an article here on the forge:

The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast

[*]"The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither sub-clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other. [/list:u]

As it stands, I understand the contradiction.  If the story is taken to have its common meaning, then saying that "the GM is author of the story" is to say that the outcome of events is under control of the GM - which flatly denies the players the ability to make significant choices for their characters, preventing them from being able to "direct the actions of the protagonists."

In reverse, if the players can "direct the actions of the protagonists", then the GM is not free to be the sole "author of the story"

I think I understand this totally.

However, I think my problem is the following:  The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast as defined above is, I think, a sort of straw man.

I do not think that

The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists.

is what a majority of the published games out there are claiming.

Let me rephrase and set up some abbreviations.
TITBB = The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast = The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists.
TPTA = The Possible Thing Anytime = The GM is the author of the world and the players direct the actions of the protagonists.

I believe that TITBB has been correctly identified as a contradiction in terms.  But I also believe that very few published rpg's maintain TITBB to be true.

I also believe that TPTA is NOT a contradiction, and furthermore, that most published rpg's maintain TPTA (not TITBB.)

OK, now I have to put my money where my mouth is.  I am going to check a selection of fairly mainstream RPG's from my RPG library.

The games I have chosen are:

[*] D&D d20 Players Handbook and Dungeonmaster's Guide by Jonathan Tweet. (c) 2000
[*] Mage the Ascension by Stewart Wieck, (c) 1993
[*] Champions by George Macdonald, (c)  1989
[*] Torg, by Greg Gordon, (c) 1990
(I had to include Torg, my as-yet favorite(tm) rpg of them all! <grin>)[/list:u]
Okay, here we go...

[*] D&D/d20

Let's start with the player handbook.  Here are some quotes from it:

When you play the Dungeons and Dragons game, you create a unique fictional character that lives in your imagination and the imagination of your friends.  One person in the game, the Dungeon Master (DM) controls the monsters and the people that live in the fantasy world.  You and your friends face the dangers and explore the mysteries that your Dungeon Master sets before you.

Amazingly, that's about all the explanation of rpg roles you get from the Player's Handbook.

Now, some quotes from the Dungeon Master's Guide:

Let's start with the biggest secret of all, the key to Dungeons Mastering...
...The secret is that you're in charge. This is not the telling-everyone-what-to-do sort of in charge. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens.  You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them...
...your primary role in the game is to create and present adventures in which other players can play their characters...

Okay, well, it doesn't appear that D&D is claiming that the players have any ability in their rpg to do anything else than play the game as the GM (DM) defines it, so D&D apparently does NOT hold to TITBB.

[*]Now, Mage:

...one player needs to be the Storyteller - the person who creates and guides the stories...
...the Storyteller describes what happens to the characters as a result of what the players say and do.  She decides if the characters succeed or fail, suffer or prosper, live or die...
...the Storyteller's primary duty is to make sure the other players have a good time.   The way to do that is with a good tale.  Unlike traditional storytellers, however, the Storyteller doesn't simply tell the story, instead, she must create the skeleton of the story and then let the players flesh it out by assuming the roles of its leading characters.  Storytelling in Mage is a careful balance between narration and adjudication, between story and game.  Sometimes, the Storyteller must set the scene or describe what occurs...
...but mostly she must decide what occurs in reaction to the words and actions of the characters - as realisitically, impartially, and creatively as possible...
...As a player in a Mage chronicle, you will take on the persona and role of a mage...
...whom you invent and then roleplay over the course of the story.  The life of your character is in your hands, for you decide what the character says and does.  You decide what risks to accept or decline...
...Characters are central to a story, for they alter and direct the plot; without characters you can't have a story.  As the story flows, the characters, not the decisions of the Storyteller, direct and energize the progress of the plot
  To some extent, you are a Storyteller as well as a player.  You should feel free to add elements and ideas to the story, thought the Storyteller may accept or reject them as she sees fit.  In the end, the story, not your character, is most important.  The character is a tool for telling a good story.

OK, some immediate superficial problems present themselves - such as the text being flowery and artsy prose, not clear and concise instructions.  Also, as with most "101" texts, there is an element of dumbing down. However, this is not a problem if you dig a little deeper.  

Taken in context, Mage is maintaining that "the Storyteller doesn't simply tell the story, instead, she must create the skeleton of the story and then let the players flesh it out by assuming the roles of its leading characters."

In other words, Mage maintains that the GM (Storyteller) create the basis of the story, and then the players "flesh it out".I see no inherent contradiction in the above. Mage does not claim the GM is the author of the story, but rather the instigator.  The text does reference the Storyteller being "the person who creates and guides the stories" but I think it is clear from the context that "creates and guides" means "gives birth to and nurtures" and not "creates in a finished state."
Therefor, Mage is not claiming TITBB, but TPTA.

[*]Next, Champions:

When playing a roleplaying game, one player takes the parts of the director and author.  This person, called a Game Master (GM for short) decides on the basic plot of the adventure.  The GM describes the setting to the players. Each player creates his character, including powers, abilities, and personality.  The player makes up dialogue on the spot...
...The GM acts out the roles of all the people the players encounter...
...in the course of the campaign, the players and the GM will have to decide on its "ground rules" - what the GM expects from the players and what the players expect from the GM.  Real problems develop i campaigns where the GM provides no guidance as to what  the ground rules are, and in campaigns where the PC's find that their own codes of behaviour clash with one another and the GM...
... once combat occurs, the GM takes over as referee, deciding what rules apply...
...the GM also plays the part of the opponents, deciding what actions they will take.  The players respond as there characters would...
...the storyline or plot of the game is responsive to the playes decisions...
...The GM integrates the player's ideas and responses into the game. Ideally, a roleplaying game involves constant feedback between the players and the GM...

Again, I think it is apparent that there is no inherent contradiction between the roles of GM and Player as Champions defines it.  In fact, they go out of their way to help both "sides" avoid conflict in the first place.

So, again, TITBB is nowhere to be seen, and instead we have a perspective on the roles of GM and Player closer to TPTA.

[*]Finally, TORG:

Consider roleplaying as Let's Pretend with rules.  There is a referee, also called a GameMaster, who judges disputes.  The GameMaster also sets the scenes and creates the story lines that the players experience through their characters.  The characters are really the heart of the roleplaying game.
Each player takes the roles of one character, a participant in the great story being woven by the gamemaster, who plays the roles of all the other characters in the story, called gamemaster characters.  The player characters' actions will directly affect that story, often changing the course of events in significant ways.  The back-and-forth storytelling aspects...

Okay, it did say that the characters are "participants in the great story being woven by the gamemaster" - but lets not take this out of context.  Referring to the gamemaster "weaving" the story is clearly not meant to imply that he decides the outcomes of events, but that he (again) instigates them.  This is illustrated by the following text that says "The player characters' actions will directly affect that story, often changing the course of events in significant ways."

Again, I can find no apparent contradiction here, and no sign of TITBB.  What I see here, again, seems like TPTA.
[/list:u]

Now, I am sure that one could seek and find a few games that DO maintain TITBB, especially if one looked in the bargain bin, but taking a sample of mainstream, published rpg's, they seem to indicate that whether or not TITBB is a contradiction or not, it is simply not relevant.

I have observed - both from this recent sample and over my 2 decades of playing, Gming, and collecting RPG's  - that the majority of RPG's don't even put forth TITBB.  They do say that the GM must create, guide, and instigate the events in the PC's lives; but they stop short of saying anything that would create a contradiction between the roles of GM and Player.

So, at this point, I feel that with all due respect, TITBB is a sort of ruse, a kind of sleght of hand.  Sure TITBB makes no sense.  Apparently, few games have claimed otherwise.

However, TPTA makes very good sense, and seems to be the approach that the majority of mainstream published games employ.

A couple of closing notes:
[list=1]
[*] I realize the forge does not cater to mainstream rpg's and I think that's a good thing.  The reason I used mainstream rpg's as a baseline is that they by definition are what the majority of people are playing, and therefor what the majority of players get exposed to.  I am not advocating the mainstream however! :)

[*] I know that I am a nobody here and that Ron Edwards is, I think, a founding moderator of the Forge, a published game designer, and a major contributor to a vast selection of thought provoking work of rpg theory and design.
What I am asking is that you overlook all of that in listening to me make my case.
(lol) Just kidding.
Seriously, though, I hope the fact that I am the unproven newbie here will not cause people to judge the content herein poorly.  I ask that you judge the content on its on merits, and not on the fact that an unknown crank (me) seems to be setting himself up against a wise elder (Ron.)  
(innocent smile)

[*] Finally, although I believe that my post is in fact correct, I must make allowances that there may be one or more flaws in my arguments that I am not presently seeing, or that I have incorrectly evaluated the arguments contrary to my position.  As I make room for the possibility that I am wrong, I ask that you remember that I am only human, and if it turns out that I have been mistaken, I am allowed to learn from my mistakes and move on.

[*] Alternatively, we are all only human.  Therefore, I ask all of you to make room for the possibility that it may turn out that I am corrrect in all of this.
[/list:o]
If we all start with an open mind, then  we will all wind up at the same conclusion eventually, no matter which one is correct.

Whew!  That's a heckuva long post, considering that I had stated I was going to be putting this topic on hold while dealing with other matters of rpg theory, but what can I say, Ron seduced me.

Now that's a mental picture that won't easily go away!  <grin>

-Sindyr

[Sindyr]

I just reread my post, and I realize that my joking tone might come off as disrespectful towards Ron.

I want to let everyone know that I am not that stupid. <grin>

First of all, Ron has been wonderfully supportive to my trying to grasp and master the concepts here, and secondly; everything I have experienced of Ron's works shows great thought and experience.

That is not to say that I am 100% in agreement with everything I have read, of course ;)

I just hope my strongly worded ideas and bantering way doesn't make me come off sounding like a jerk.

And Ron, thanks for taking the time to help me figure this stuff out.

And thanks to everyone else who has helped also. :)

-Sindyr