The Forge Archives

I've put this as a separate thread for several reasons:

1. I don't think it's a direct address to Sindyr's original question;
2. I don't think the discussion is really about Sindyr's original question any longer; and
3. Sindyr isn't following that discussion any more anyway.

Definition
The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast = "the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists" (GNS and Other Matters).

Proposition 1
Defined in its most restrictive sense, the Impossible Thing is indeed impossible.  If it is taken to mean, "The GM controls everything completely and the players have complete freedom," then it's meaningless, unless of course you want to take the sort of postmodern approach Mike Holmes mentioned.

Proposition 2
Few games propose TITBB in such terms.  Possibly none do.  It is possible that close analysis of some "how to play" texts will reveal TITBB, but that remains to be proven (and seems to be the focus of the longstanding thread).

Theorem
As actually stated, the Impossible Thing isn't impossible.

So this is sort of a follow-up to Sindyr's question.  Here goes.

1. GM as Author

While the GM is the author of the ongoing story, we cannot assess this intelligently until after the fact.  That is, if we are going to talk about "story" as something other than simple events in a row, one damn thing after another, then we are talking about being able to discuss a certain block of events post facto as having some sort of narrative coherence.  I think this is what Ron means by an "instance."

Now we really only have two other possible perspectives from which to discuss authorship: before the events happen, and while they occur.  In the former case, we're left in a kind of weird atemporal confusion, because we're talking about someone as the author of a story that has not yet begun, which may sound vaguely high-theory cool, but probably doesn't mean a whole lot.

But what much of the debate seems to be about is the idea of GM as author of the events as they unfold right now.  Fine, but in that case we're talking about a sequence of statements, not narrative; they must be taken in isolation in both directions, and thus they cease to have specific meaning.  This is why Ron wants people not to analyze GNS at a "single choice" level, after all: it's pointless, because you need context in both directions.

And it's the both directions part I want to stress here: you need to know not only what came before the event, but you also need to know where it led; in that kind of total context, you can assess an instance as narrative, or story.

So I'm going to suggest that "the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story" must mean this instance-level perspective.

As a corollary, any claim that analysis of a single event demonstrates the impossibility of TITBB is ipso facto incoherent.

2. Players as Determiners

Note that I'm breaking the second phrase into two parts: players as determiners, and characters as protagonists.  No fear: I'm not going to sweat the latter part, because I think it's unnecessary.

Okay, so what I'm going to claim is that players can make determining choices at the momentary level, even if the GM is determining things at the instance-level.

Ron has given the example of Michael Corleone having a choice, and choosing to destroy everyone and everything he loves to become the new Godfather.  This can and should be analyzed from the character/player perspective: this choice is entirely open.  But at what perspective will this choice have meaning?

Consider the film itself.  The scene when Michael argues his father's side against Kaye, standing in the road somewhere on Long Island, dressed in a city suit while the autumn leaves fall around them, is the moment when we know he's made his choice forever.  Before that, it seemed like maybe he might still choose otherwise.  What happened in between?  Oh, about 6 months of off-screen time.  So when did the player choice happen?  Off-screen.  Where did the meaning happen?  In the setup and the followup.

So suppose you were playing this as an RPG, and by whatever means you get through all that setup.  Now the GM says, "How would you like to set up this scene?"  (Meaning simply when and where, not what's going to happen.)  Player says, "I'm going to talk to Kaye.  Rocco, get the car."  Michael's player and the GM (as Kaye) play out the scene as we see it.

So did the player not determine this?  Sure he did.  At that moment, he could have chosen otherwise, but did not.

Now what happens?  Well, from there the GM keeps the ball rolling toward narrative closure, encouraging (through whatever means) Michael to keep heading toward "All my moves are made" and the guys kissing his ring.

3. What does this mean?

I'm separating two things that are getting blurred here, and suggesting that in a weird way Mike Holmes is dead on to see this as really a GNS problem.  If I understand aright, the whole point of Narrativism is that the players are working on something that under the present definition is traditionally seen as the GM's job: they're trying, from a meta-perspective, to get the whole thing to hang together as a cohesive narrative.

In many games, however, this is seen as solely the GM's job; the players just worry about things from moment to moment, and the GM worries about the grand arc of the thing.

So The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast isn't impossible.

In fact, I'll go further.  You could structure an entire game around a weird sort of fate, such that everything you do was already planned, except that nobody in the game (including GM) knows the plan.  John Crowley's novel Little, Big works like this.  There's a Tale, and everything anyone does is part of the Tale, and everything anyone does is the Right Thing for the Tale because that's the definition of the Tale.  As one character realizes, however, that means that if you're not to go crazy, you've got to forget that it's a Tale.

In short, I think TITBB depends upon a false dichotomy, because in order to make it a real critique of some game structures you have to analyze at precisely the level that doesn't work for the models we replace it with.

Any takers?

I've always considered the Players to be authors of the active narrative, while the GM is the author of the reactive narrative.   Perhaps that is oversimplifying things, though.

It's interesting, Redcrow, that a lot of games run in precisely the reverse manner.  Players react to the GM's plot points - and that's all they do.  And that an be a perfectly satisfying way to play.

Chris, I'm going to suggest that The Impossible Thing is also problematical to gamist play.  First of all, I think Donjon pretty much establishes that narrative control is a perfectly good source of conflict for gamist play.

Secondly let's imagine the Michael Corleone scene from a gamist perspective.  Let's say the gamist point is "Keep Michael Corleone alive for as long as possible".  In the course of the game, the players survival strategy changes from 'staying out of the mob' to 'running the mob'.  The same choice is made from a gamist perspective.

Now pretty clearly from a narrativist perspective, the GM blocking the player's choice, stopping Michael from becoming the head of the mob, because that's not the story the GM had in mind, is problematic.

From a gamist perpective it's also problematic.  The GM's overriding story cuts down on gamist strategy choices.

Gamist choices also create story even if they don't (intentionally) address a Premise in the narrativist sense.

There is an open question as to whether a solution to The Impossible Thing could be found within simulationism, but I suspect that if it can, it's a solution for simulationism in specific circumstances, not simulationism as a whole.

As I've said before (and am continuing to say to Valimir in PM's):

The Impossible Thing was (IIRC) created when there was much debate about whether non-narrativist "protagonized" forms of play were possible. I think it has been established they are.

Therefore, I find the term out-dated.

I believe it has been ret-conned to be (not what certain types of games are based on) but rather The Big Misunderstanding or the Poorly Thought Out Power Split That Causes Trouble--but remember the key to the Impossible Thing (before breakfast no less--the term itself likend the reader to Wonderland's Red Queen) was to use the terms from the GNS essay absurd.

A pretty standard interpertation of the words in much of the 'how to' sections has no inherent contradiction. Since the words themselves are almost necessiarliy vague (since despite The Forge there is no standard jargon for game designers to use to reach a wide audience and the kind of theory used here would send consumers *fleeing*) all readers (myself and TITTBBB crowd) alike must use *some* definition. Why choose a necessiarly broke one? Or do people here believe *most* gaming is dysfunctional?

-Marco

Quote
All of these games are based on The Great Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast: that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd.

Edited to add: Check out JAGS Fast Company and the villains book The Fall of New York. Hong Kong bullet-ballet action. Over the top martial arts mayhem! Fantastic illustrations--and it's all *free*: http://jagsgame.dyndns.org

I'm still of the opinion, and Ralph may well disagree, that all of the misunderstanding on this topic comes down to players not understanding the mindset of the player who wants to play in a Narrativist mode.

We can argue around and around about how common misinterperetation is, but it doesn't seem that anyone is saying it's impossible to read the texts in question and come out with a dysfunctional interperetation. That is, is it possible that some players might read these sorts of texts and interperet that they will have power to make decisions on the sorts of issues that they want to make decisions on (the moral, ethical, emotional yadda, yadda, stuff). And that at the same time these player's GMs might be reading that they are required to provide exactly the sorts of details that makes it impossible for players to make these decisions without the player and GM coming into conflict.

If you admit that this is true, then you admit that TITBB exists. We can discuss til we're blue in the face about how often such interperetations occur, and what the author's intents were, and how often this leads to actual dysfunction, and how many easy to implement ways there are around it. But even if it's rare, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

To many, many players, it's going to be irrellevant. I've said that repeatedly. No, Marco, this isn't meant for the general public. They aren't designing games. It's meant to address the gripes of one group of people who you don't happen to be a member of. But saying that this makes it irrellevant is like someone saying that Racism isn't an issue beacuse one isn't subject to it. Just because it's not an issue for you doesn't mean it's not an issue for somebody.

Players who would prefer Narrativism have suffered because they feel that TITBB promises to provide Narrativism, and, in fact, it usually provides Simulationism. Which means that Sim players can tell the Nar players to shut up and enjoy, because, "Hey, it provides story for me." It's that simple.

Mike

It's the quote, Mike--the one at the end of my last post. I agree that anything can be mis-read (the quoting of my post earlier up). Some people will find themselves making this mistake even as they are unaware of it. It may then cause problems. So sure, a problem like the one you describe exists--I've never disputed that.

What I'm bringing attention to is the following:
1. "that the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists. This is impossible. It's even absurd. "

[emphasis mine.]

1. Can the GM of a sim-game who sets up situation and adjudicates the response to the players actions be defined as the "author" of the story?

Yes. Insofar as 'story' and 'author' apply to RPG's (and I've had a long and agreeable discussion with Valimir so I know my take on story and author is not some twisted fantasy--if he and I agree even basically on anything it's got legs).

2. Can the player's actions have the dramatic impact on that story that protagonizes them?

Yes, clearly. In a simulationist fashion.

Therefore: not impossible and not absurd.

Pick at term that doesn't make a characture of the person who reads the text in a simulationst fashion. If you have Narrativist leanings, take responsiblity for them when reading.

Call it: The Narrativist Control Paradox. I'll sign to it.

-Marco

What Mike said, I think - personally, I guess I have a somewhat "protective" response to discusions of the Impossible Thing because I was in quite a few games (with different groups, in different geographic locations) that tried to acheive it.  Not usually entirely dysfunctional, but ultimately quite frustrating for many of those involved.

And describing those games as TITBB fits.  It fits almost exactly - the GM ruled the world, and couldn't take input from the players about that, even if it would benefit the game as a whole.  The players ruled their characters, and couldn't take input from the GM and/or other players, no matter how sensible.

I can now imagine that some people might experience NO frustration in such a situation - and I can better understand a few basically happy players in those games.

And . . . these threads talk a lot about how important the "player empowerment" is in avoiding TITBB, but the folks who were ultimately MOST frustrated in the games I'm thinking of were the GMs.  Their campaigns could never get to where they wanted 'em to go, because some player eventually derailed things.

So I guess - clehrich, I'm not sure how moment-to-moment vs. grand arc fits at the theoretical level, but as a practical issue, it didn't solve the Impossible Thing for me.  Probably because the GM had moment-to-moment stuff he wanted, and the players had grand arc stuff they wanted, and there was no effective way to let that happen.

Gordon

EDIT - re-reading, "get to where they wanted 'em" and "derailed" sound like I'm accusing those GM's of railroading - that's not what I meant.  I meant they had a perfectly legitimate and even somewhat group-discussed agenda for play, that got frustrated.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisWhat Mike said, I think - personally, I guess I have a somewhat "protective" response to discusions of the Impossible Thing because I was in quite a few games (with different groups, in different geographic locations) that tried to acheive it.  Not usually entirely dysfunctional, but ultimately quite frustrating for many of those involved.

Gordon

So--you're saying it *can't* work? That's not what Mike is saying. He (and I--and Valamir and Ron) have been saying it can work for common simulationist values of 'author'. 'story', and 'protagonization.' My last example of actual play is one of these.

Not impossible. Not absurd. Neither, that is,  in common simulationist light. If you have a GM who is strongly and badly illusionist/railrading/or participationist then yes, it won't happen. If you read as a Narrativist it's a paradox. That's a product of the people, not the basic concept.

-Marco
Edited to add: and the above post is why I bothered responding at all--because no matter what happens, so long as the name is unchanged and the terms aren't better spelled out, someone will come along and say "you can't do what you're saying you're doing:" A GM not getting his players to go along with the adventure is NOT TITTBBB (not necessiarly, that is, unless it results from a specific Sim/Nar dichotomy).

Hi Marco,

Quote from: MarcoSo--you're saying it *can't* work?

Nope - I thought I was clear about that elsewhere, and even in this post I say "I can now imagine that some people might experience NO frustration in such a situation - and I can better understand a few basically happy players in those games."

The point here was just that I personally encountered games where it *didn't* work, and that's why I agree with Mike about Narrativists (GMs AND players) getting all excited about TITBB - it explains why they were frustrated.

I'm not sure why you thought I was saying any instance of a GM not getting his players to go along with an adventure is TITBB - but I'm not.  I wasn't even really talking about getting players to go along with an adventure - more like getting players to buy-in to the direction a game was shifting in.

Let me check something though - the "you can't do what you say you're doing" follow-up to TITBB is SOMETIMES valid, right?  This goes way back to some of *my* earliest questions at the Forge, which I thought I had resolved (not that I'm against re-opening 'em) - Nar Story, created by everyone during play, cannot happen in the presence of TITBB.  Some forms of Sim story are greatly impeded by a too-extreme application of division implicit in TITBB, but some Sim styles can handle it - and given some tastes (that want some form of that GM/world, plyer/character division, for whatever reason), they HAVE to handle it.  And can, and do.

So - taking away the possibly (and quite reasonably) seen-as-insulting "I know something about your game you don't" tone of "you can't be doing that" . . .  whenever we encouter a strong GM/world, player/character control split, isn't it quite right to ask "how are you managing to get story out of that?"  Because even outside of Nar Story, the obstacles are significant - just not insurmountable.

Much longer than I thought I'd be, but I guess I got nervous because of the apparent mis-interpretation of my previous post,

Gordon

Hey Gordon,

It was the part the part of the post that you edited that I keyed on. I read that as an over-controling GM having problems with player-empowerment (and saying that was the power-split referenced by this thread). Your edit makes it clearer.*

I certainly agree that some people have bad ideas about the GM/Player power split. This should make everyone happy.

I don't agree that those bad ideas are the Impossible Thing (see my 2-pt break down of it above)--the baldly stated impossibility of non-narrativist story. Change the term or re-write the definition to include narrativist leanings and I'm fine with it.

As it stands, the text of the Impossible Thing is, IMO, misleading.

-Marco
* the "some people might have fun with this" was filed in the "some people might have fun with anything" folder, unfortunately--but that sentiment gets tossed around here from time to time.

Marco,

That makes sense - I thought I got that edit in before anyonme could have read the msg, but you must be quick . . .

I feel like we've hijacked clehrich's attempt to add moment-to-moment vs. grand arc as factors in TITBB - like I said, moment-to-moment vs. grand arc doesn't seem to "fix" anything about TITBB to me, and that's what I can contribute there.

As far as I can tell, everyone's in pretty close agreement except for the old "what is S/story in an RPG?" sticking point with the Impossible Thing, and that's being addressed elsewhere . . . maybe clerich's scope issues are useful when thinking about story?

Off to read other threads,

Gordon

Quote from: clehrich"the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists"

As actually stated, the Impossible Thing isn't impossible.

One cannot determine the result of a story's protagonists when someone else is determining the result. Period. This is simple damn logic, folks.

"My actions here make a difference to the ultimate direction of play."
"My actions here do not make a difference to the ultimate direction of play."

Either you get to say what happens, or someone else does. That's all there is to it. All this other garbage about GNS, valid forms of illusionist or simulationist play, and so forth is a bunch of wordy, irrelevant nonsense.

You cannot have the freedom of a player given in many texts when the GM is given the control of the ultimate direction. End. Period.

I'm going to make this short and sweet: whether or not it is what the author meant, whether or not it is written in the texts, it is provably an existant belief-statement (that has nothing to do with GNS) that crops up in both the oral and written forms of the hobby and, as written (whether or not due lack of clarity ie: "what he meant when he said") is impossible.

EDIT: Two additions

This thread, non-narrativist "protagonized" forms of play, is relevant to this discussion because it rightly points out the mistake in perceiving this as a GNS or standard/non-standard power-assignment issue.

And over in Impossible Thing: textual examples, Ian brought the following to light: "Depending on the situation the GM may determine what happens arbitrarily...if {the players} want something to happen in the story, they make it happen, because they're in the story."

This is an excellent definition of the problem, this is the social meme of the Impossible Thing. There's no clear delineation in the Impossible Thing between when the GM's power of arbitrary or preplanned decision overrules the power of the players.

Either you get this, or you don't. So that's the last I'm saying about it because this has become something not even remotely a discussion about TITBB anymore.

Quote from: Gordon C. LandisAnd describing those games as TITBB fits. It fits almost exactly - the GM ruled the world, and couldn't take input from the players about that, even if it would benefit the game as a whole. The players ruled their characters, and couldn't take input from the GM and/or other players, no matter how sensible.
...
Nar Story, created by everyone during play, cannot happen in the presence of TITBB.  Some forms of Sim story are greatly impeded by a too-extreme application of division implicit in TITBB, but some Sim styles can handle it - and given some tastes (that want some form of that GM/world, plyer/character division, for whatever reason), they HAVE to handle it.  And can, and do.

So - taking away the possibly (and quite reasonably) seen-as-insulting "I know something about your game you don't" tone of "you can't be doing that" . . .  whenever we encounter a strong GM/world, player/character control split, isn't it quite right to ask "how are you managing to get story out of that?"

Good question.  As usual, I go back to examples: specifically my Star Trek campaigns.  (Chris can hopefully get involved too here since he was a player in them.)  As I mentioned, these had a strong GM=world, player=character control split.  They also were strongly lead by me as GM setting up the initial situation for each episode, but the players then had open options for how to deal with it.  

How was story generated?  

Good question.  I think one point for this is specific to the sci-fi/fantasy nature of it.  In Star Trek, the physical situation faced is always an allegory for some sort of moral/ethical issue.  Thus, I as GM could semi-clearly define the issue and communicate it to the players without violating the
GM=world paradigm.  

The players could then deal with the situations as they liked.  These varied considerably.  For example, in the episode I mentioned earlier about the primitive Vilid who captured a space station, Captain Anderson simply granted his request. On the other hand, Chris' later PC Captain D'Arbeloff tended to be much more forceful in dealing with possible opponents.  

In some way, the presented dilemma combined with the PCs response generated a story.  I'm not sure on the details of this one.  At the time, we thought of it mainly in terms of PC dynamic -- how to get the PCs to act as a group.   I think this was actually the key to making the episode into a story.  The story took place in the PCs recognizing the issue, and then interacting to come up with a response.  Thus, it was really the group decision-making of the PCs which was key to the story.  

Captain Anderson tended to be diplomatic, taking in various sides of debate and then making the decision.  This worked at times depending on how conversation went, but sometimes was indecisive.  The stories with Captain D'Arbeloff were generally about the bridge officers trying to come up with a better solution so that D'Arbeloff didn't take his approach and raze the planet or something.  

I don't have any strong conclusions on this -- just sharing my thoughts on the subject.

Quote from: greyorm

Quote from: clehrich"the GM may be defined as the author of the ongoing story, and, simultaneously, the players may determine the actions of the characters as the story's protagonists"

As actually stated, the Impossible Thing isn't impossible.

One cannot determine the result of a story's protagonists when someone else is determining the result. Period. This is simple damn logic, folks.

"My actions here make a difference to the ultimate direction of play."
"My actions here do not make a difference to the ultimate direction of play."

When clehrich said as actually stated he hit my primary issue with it. The impossible thing doesn't say both parties determine the results of actions. It says things about protagonists. It says things about authors. It says things about story.

All the words used are metaphores for what goes on in gaming.

So yes, you can read your paradox into it. Clearly.

I see no paradox in the exact same text that Ron uses in the glossary.

As it stands, it's broken: a clearly possible thing being called impossible. It's neither impossible nor absurd unless you read as a Narrativist. It needs to say that.

-Marco

OK - for the purposes of the argument here, can someone answer this from a simulationist standpoint.

I'm totally buying the GM controls the world; player controls the character split.

Let's focus only on situation.  I'm presuming in the above, the GM proposes the situation.  Who disposes?  Who creates the outcome of the situation?

Is it possible to suggests that the GM controls the outcome of the situation AND the players control their characters actions?