[Tunnels and Trolls] A Player's Dissatisfaction

[Valamir]

I don't follow you at all Callan...Deprotagonization seems like a real red herring here.  We're talking Gamism, not Nar here.  Character's in T&T aren't protagonists, they're disposable game pieces whose reason for existance is to kill things and take their stuff.

The GM's job is to provide various conflicts for the players to defeat.  Players have two means of defeating any challenge.  1) kill it using the combat rules, or 2) finangle a way around it using the Saving Throw rules, or potentially some combination of the two.

The GM has no real choice if the players choose #1.  The monsters cabilities are predefined and there are (relative to other gamist dungeon romp games) a limited number of options for "good play" to swing the odds.  Well timed use of spells being about the biggest tactic players have available.  So, largely (but far from entirely) option #1 comes down to a dice roll contest where the dice come from previously purchased resources.

The GM does have a choice if a player comes up with option #2.  He must set the difficulty.  If he sets the difficulty too high he's handing free XPs to the player who can use that to buy additional resources that in the future will allow him to choose #1 more confidently and not need option #2.  If he sets the difficulty too low he's handing easy success to the players and failing to kill them.

The players also have to choose carefully, because over reliance on #2 may lead to a few easy victories, but typically won't earn any XPs...which means falling behind the power curve and eventually being vulnerable to #1.

This seems to me to be a completely viable dynamic set of interacting options for both the players and the GM.  By and large the players get to choose #1 vs. #2 which has definite differences and repurcussions to the player's long term character improvement.  The GM gets to choose difficulty for #2 which has definite differences and repurcussions to the player's long term character improvement.  I'm failing to see any correlation to your coin flipping analogy. 

There's a matrix of 4 possible outcomes here:

1) Fight and Win:  Best most desireable solution for players, Least desireable solution for GM.  Players defeat conflict, advance in the dungeon, and gain XPs

2) Fight and Lose:  Worst possible outcome for the players.  Best possible for the GM.  Players fail to advance, risk character death, and gain no XPs

3) Save and Win:  Middle outcome for both.  Players defeat/avoid conflict, may  advance in the dungeon or just avoid defeat, but gain no XPs.

4) Save and Lose:  Middle outcome for both.  Players do not overcome conflict, may risk character death but gain XPs.

The only thing the GM can do is shift from one middle outcome to the other middle outcome...basically choosing to give the players progress or XPs.  But most commonly its up to the players to choose to give the GM that ability to give with.  Typically the players choose whether they are going for Best vs. Worst or settling for middle.

Where's the deprotagonization here?  Not seeing it. 

[Callan S.]

Hi Ralph,

Whoa, we don't even share the foundation I was working from. Dang! But basically, characters in narrativism don't exist, so they can't really be protagonists either...to me, protagonism is the empowerment of a player, not an imaginary character. Looking at the glossary...

Protagonism
A problematic term with two possible meanings. (1) A characteristic of the main characters of stories, regardless of who produced the stories in whatever way. (2) A characteristic set of behaviors among people during role-playing, associated with Narrativist play, with a necessary unnamed equivalent in Gamist play and possibly another in Simulationist play. In the latter sense, coined by Paul Czege.

I'm talking about that unnamed gamist equivalent*. As noted, an example would be the player stating they want to take a 50% risk, but the GM ignoring that and applying a 30% risk or a 70% risk or whatever. Usually in the interest in of a better challenge, ie the equivalent of

Typhoid Mary
A GM who employs Force in the interests of "a better story," usually identifiable as addressing Premise; however, in doing so, the GM automatically de-protagonizes Narrativist players and therefore undercuts his or her own priorities of play, as well as being perceived as a railroader by the players. An extremely dysfunctional subset of Narrativist play.

That's the foundation. I don't think it's established between us yet, but do you think that 'a better challenge' could be just as bad as 'a better story'?


* Yay Ron for having this in the glossary already...and even a suggestion there's one for simulationism as well!

[Hans]

Ralph, forgive me for butchering your comments to save space...you and I know what you wrote. :)

But in T&T the GM doesn't get fiat...the GM gets the opportunity to PURCHASE fiat.
[snip]
Only in T&T the higher the difficulty the GM sets, the greater the XP reward the player gets for failing.
[snip]
Further the player is also gaining power in the OTHER arena of conflict resultion...basic killing stuff...which isn't subject to GM whim in setting up difficulty levels bound to fail. 
[snip]
Which all boils down to me to suggest the the primary duty of the GM is to game the odds...
Don't make the difficulties so high that you're giving away XPs like candy, but don't make them so low that your encounters are easily side-stepped and circumvented.  You have to set them JUST high enough to make it risky for the players to try it...which also means JUST low enough to be tempting to the players to try.
...which to me sounds like the very gaminess of the system motivates the GM to set the difficulty levels to the level that is most interesting and entertaining...risky, but tempting...
[snip]
It also seems like its rife with step on up tactical options.  The tactics may not be d20 esque "which feat to use now" tactics...but surely the players will try to game the Saving Throws in the same (although contrary) manner as I outlined for the GM above, and that juxtaposition is where the tactics and step on up occurs...

Ralph, there are two areas where I disagree with you in the above.  I agree with you that there is an incentive for the GM, in a way, to "game the odds".  I just disagree with you about the results of that system innovation.

First, from what you describe above, there is a "sweet spot" (SS) for any Saving Roll, then, from the GM's point of view.  It is, mathematically:

SS=Character Attribute Score+7. 

This will ensure that there is always exactly a 50% chance of success on any Saving Roll, and the average XP gained from a Sweet Spot difficulty is 0.  This is, I suppose, gaming the odds, but its like playing Blackjack with a system; it might get you money, but its boring as all get out. 

Second, with the game as written, the payoff of leveling comes far too slowly for gaming the saving rolls to really matter in terms of effectiveness.  Admittedly, this is an aesthetic judgement on my part, not necessarily a flaw in the system. In general you would need to kill about 20 monsters (at 50 XP) each, or make about 100 saving rolls (at either + or - 17 to your attribute score) to gain 2nd level.  After that, the saving rolls gradually decrease in their relative contribution to leveling, because the amount gained for them doesn't change that much (with only two dice rolled, in general you can gain much more than 12 from them unless your GM is making things really easy or insanely hard) while the amount needed to level does get bigger.  Its a real effect you are talking about, but I think in practice it is a minor one.

Now, to quote something you wrote in your second reply:

1) Fight and Win:  Best most desireable solution for players, Least desireable solution for GM.  Players defeat conflict, advance in the dungeon, and gain XPs

2) Fight and Lose:  Worst possible outcome for the players.  Best possible for the GM.  Players fail to advance, risk character death, and gain no XPs

3) Save and Win:  Middle outcome for both.  Players defeat/avoid conflict, may  advance in the dungeon or just avoid defeat, but gain no XPs.

4) Save and Lose:  Middle outcome for both.  Players do not overcome conflict, may risk character death but gain XPs.

The only thing the GM can do is shift from one middle outcome to the other middle outcome...basically choosing to give the players progress or XPs.  But most commonly its up to the players to choose to give the GM that ability to give with.  Typically the players choose whether they are going for Best vs. Worst or settling for middle.

First of all, the 2nd two are not quite correct.  In both cases, the players will gain XP, since they gain XP for won or lost Saving Rolls.  But more importantly, your statement "the players choose whether they are going for the Best vs. Worst, or settling for middle" is completely incorrect.  The GM chooses this.  The GM can simply say "stop whining for Saving Rolls and make your *&%^$^ combat roll!, you snivelers! Take your punishment like men!"  The players can only use Saving Rolls to get out of a situation if the GM thinks it is interesting for them to do so.  Hence, if the game really is a struggle between the GM and the players (as your comments on the first two points above about "best" and "worst" outcomes indicate), why would I as a player want to play?  The deck is completely stacked against me and the GM holds all the cards.  I can only win if he thinks it is interesting for me to do so.  It would be like playing Monopoly where the banker can veto any purchase you make and just not let you have the property.  If it were indeed the case that the PLAYERS could choose this in some way, that the players could set the terms of the conlict, I would like the game a lot more. 

Because of this, I must give credit to the designers of T&T and assume that an active struggle between GM and players was NOT what the invisioned when the game was designed, for the reasons I mention above.  The GM has to be intended as a non-biased Referee, not an active combatant.  Rafial mentioned something earlier about T&T, back in the day, being primarily played with prewritten adventure modules, where the possible SR's and monsters are predetermined up front.  The players are trying to "beat" the module and the GM is completely impartial.   It does present to players exactly the kind of choices you describe above: safe and low payoff vs. risky and high payoff, with no "please the GM" aspects.  While this kind of play does not personally appeal to me, I can see why some might enjoy it,

[Hans]

What do you think of "The GM has a structure to determine how successful stuff is" compared to "The GM doesn't determine if stuff is successful at all - he just places the monsters"?

Thanks for clarifying.  I like both systems, and I think both can work very well, and I am willing to bet that most GM's go back and forth between the two modes you describe, using the 2nd in areas where they have really had a chance to prepare, and using the 2nd when the players go "off the map" and the GM has to make up stuff as they go along.   I know that I switch between these modes all the time when I run games.

Tthe following is also workable: "The GM has a structure to determine how successful stuff is, but can decide to make things easier on the players".  This allows a form of "please the GM" which cannot be punitive, but can be rewarding to all invovled.  This mode is somewhat more dangerous, as it might lead to hard feelings because of perceived favoritism.  But I also think it is more realistic. Lets face it, the GM wants to have fun too, and it is human nature for him to want to positively reinforce things the players do that he enjoys so that they will do those things more often. 

Another workable mode is "The GM and players have a structure to compete over how successful stuff is".  This is somewhat like Fate or Heroquest, and Capes is the ultimate expression of this mode.  In this mode, although the deck can be stacked in the GM's favour, as long as the players can have their way when they REALLY want it (hero points in Heroquest, for example), the game can be successful.

What I don't like is "The GM determines if stuff is successful."  It is the lack of structure that bothers me about T&T, not the idea that the GM is the final arbiter of success or failure.

[Callan S.]

Hi Hans,

Do you mean structure, in a way that can be used by the player to judge the GM's arbitration? So the players can judge if he's fallen into a 'please the GM' mode or how impartial he's being?

[Hans]

Hi Hans,

Do you mean structure, in a way that can be used by the player to judge the GM's arbitration? So the players can judge if he's fallen into a 'please the GM' mode or how impartial he's being?

Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head.  To my mind the prime example of this would be the rules for magic in Mage, which I mentioned previously.  There is a LOT of room for creativity, but there is also a pretty solid structure by which difficulty can be judged.

I think the structure is probably more often used by the GM than the players, simply because the GM is usually the person who knows the rules the best.  That is, most good GM's, I think, will monitor themselves for signs of unhealthy "please the GM" behaviour (there can be healthy 'please the GM' behaviour) and try to prevent it; it may be subconscious, but I still think they do it.  A good structure helps them do this.  But even though I think in actual play it is rarely invoked by them, a good structure is a bulwark in defense of the players.   I have seen this in Heroquest, where a GM (not due to malice, but simply due to excitement) has had problems in controlling the number and type of augments used.  But a few of the players know that there are rules for this, and have been able to say "GM, hold on a sec..." and worked it out amicably and for the betterment of the entire game, because Heroquest has a good structure for this.

[epweissengruber]

most good GM's, I think, will monitor themselves for signs of unhealthy "please the GM" behaviour (there can be healthy 'please the GM' behaviour) and try to prevent it; it may be subconscious, but I still think they do it.  A good structure helps them do this.  But even though I think in actual play it is rarely invoked by them, a good structure is a bulwark in defense of the players.   I have seen this in Heroquest, where a GM (not due to malice, but simply due to excitement) has had problems in controlling the number and type of augments used.  But a few of the players know that there are rules for this, and have been able to say "GM, hold on a sec..." and worked it out amicably and for the betterment of the entire game, because Heroquest has a good structure for this.

Hans, et. al: this has been one of the most rewarding discussions of mechanics that I have seen in a long time (esp. since the theory forum closed down for renovations).

Heroquest does provide some rules for magic augments (3 if you have time, 1 if you are in a pinch) but provides no upper limits for the number of personality traits that might be brought in.  We seem to have extended instinctively the rule of 3 for other kinds of augmentation as well (3 personality traits, 3 physical).  Moreover, I will be making sure that during extended contests players realize that after the initial decisions about augments, further traits can be brought in for each round of the extended contest but will work only for that particular round.  This is an adaptation of the Heroquest rule that penalizes repeated uses of the same ability to achieve an end.

But we have worked these out as a play group.  These rules are not explicit in the book -- they are a product of our social contract.  We don't want players with different levels of effectiveness so we have reached a (relatively) happy medium between players who feel that each augment must be carefully justified in reference to the situation, the role playing that has preceded it, and to some canon of plausibility and those who want to let everything count all of the time.

But WE reached this happy medium.  The rules don't really give it.

How is this different from the social contract between T&T players and GMs, where the group works out (tacitly or explicitly) the difference between clever use of Saving Throws and GM pleasing/Player pandering behavour of the lamest sort?

[Hans]

How is this different from the social contract between T&T players and GMs, where the group works out (tacitly or explicitly) the difference between clever use of Saving Throws and GM pleasing/Player pandering behavour of the lamest sort?

In case you didn't notice, epweissengruber (Erik) was the nameless excited GM in my previous post.  :)

Erik, I would argue that Heroquest provides more structure than T&T (although not as much as I thought, which I find strangely dissapointing).  For example, each augment, in general, will not provide much more than +3 (that is, 15%) to any roll, so there is a built in limit to how crazy things can get.  Moreover, this leads to augments being incremental in nature, and therefore much more amenable to setting house rule guidelines on.  Finally, there is a concept associated with every augment (a word or phrase) that is usually more specific, or at least more evocative, than the basic attribute descriptions in T&T; this gives both player and GM a bit more to hang their hat on in terms of whether a particular augment applies or not (although whether or not an augment applies is the biggest area of "please the GM" in Heroquest, by far). 

So in answer to how it is different, I say it is different in that with Heroquest you don't have as far to go, social contract-wise, to achieve a balance, as you do in T&T.  It is real difference, but one of magnitude, not of quality.

[Callan S.]

I think your both correct to a degree. Erik's right, your working it out as a group. Hans is right, because your using the structure.

good structure is a bulwark in defense of the players.   I have seen this in Heroquest, where a GM (not due to malice, but simply due to excitement) has had problems in controlling the number and type of augments used.  But a few of the players know that there are rules for this, and have been able to say "GM, hold on a sec..." and worked it out amicably and for the betterment of the entire game, because Heroquest has a good structure for this.

See, at that point I think they weren't players, they swapped roles and became GM for the moment.

And the structure? It ensures that the players, when they turn into GM's, aren't just using fiat. By and large, they have just as much fiat as the former GM did when he GM's. So there's an equality.

BUT, it takes your social contract, the one where the GM isn't going to raise his hackles at a temporarily switching over to player status, for this to work.

With me, I think the structure in mage, for example, are just pure GM fiat, but with a whole bunch of complicated text which doesn't add up to even a bean of conclusivness. It takes a social contract where the player turned GM uses the structure to say "Hey, I'm honestly trying to use the structure as much as you do when you GM (so as to show this social contract is working). Now, as GM and filtering my judgement through the terms of this structure, I judge....etc, etc"

[Hans]

With me, I think the structure in mage, for example, are just pure GM fiat, but with a whole bunch of complicated text which doesn't add up to even a bean of conclusivness. It takes a social contract where the player turned GM uses the structure to say "Hey, I'm honestly trying to use the structure as much as you do when you GM (so as to show this social contract is working). Now, as GM and filtering my judgement through the terms of this structure, I judge....etc, etc"

I disagree with you in theory, but not in the practical outcome.  To me, the structure in Mage (and similar games) are the rules of the game, and the GM interprets the rules when they are not completely clear.  In Mage for example, the rules for some things (specialty foci, base difficulties) are pretty cut and dried, but the rules for other things (exactly what effects equate to what sphere levels) are fairly abstract and leave a lot of room for individual perspective.  But the players can still call out the GM if they think he is BREAKING the rules, and can still appeal to the text of the rules if he thinks the GM has an overly broad, or narrow, interpretation.  If the rule book says, for example, "The sphere of Forces allows X", and the GM says, "you can't do X with Forces", the players can appeal to the higher authority of the rule book. 

BTW, this is where I am dead set against the text in almost every game ever written that says "The GM can change or ignore the rules however they see fit to make the story work."  Hate it.  If you find, as a GM, you feel you have to do this, then there are either too many or too few rules in the game you are playing for what you are trying to do.  Time to drift  with publicly available (i.e. written down so the players can see them) house rules, or change to a new game.

However, this requires a social contract in which the GM will actually listen to and accept the player's arguments instead of just saying "I'm the GM, shut up."  Unfortunately there is no meta-GM that can force the GM to agree with you as a player.  The player's only recourse, if the GM disagrees, is to sit back and take it, or to leave the game. 

So from an actual play perspective, you and I see the exact same thing happening, and the exact same value in the structure, but have a slightly different theoretical perspective as to what is going on.

[Callan S.]

If the rule book says, for example, "The sphere of Forces allows X", and the GM says, "you can't do X with Forces", the players can appeal to the higher authority of the rule book. 
*snip*
However, this requires a social contract in which the GM will actually listen to and accept the player's arguments instead of just saying "I'm the GM, shut up."  Unfortunately there is no meta-GM that can force the GM to agree with you as a player.  The player's only recourse, if the GM disagrees, is to sit back and take it, or to leave the game. 

So from an actual play perspective, you and I see the exact same thing happening, and the exact same value in the structure, but have a slightly different theoretical perspective as to what is going on.

I don't see the same value in the structure as you do. Take this example: The book lists 2+2 = 4. The GM says the result is five. Here it's very clear the GM is breaking the rules, because you can go back and check the math. That's the value of the structure, in this instance.

Now this example: The book lists the power of telekinesis allows X in a vague way that needs interpretation (like in palladium books). The GM says the NPC uses telekinesis to form a thin, powerful lance of force and automatically gets through the eye slit in the armour and kills the PC.

Here, there is no way of going back and checking the math. Ignore that sim voice inside that says it knows just how the game world works and what would be reasonable. That voice is about as useful as a nar voice screaming out just what his PC would choose, when the GM declares his PC chooses something else. Useless as an arguement for who gets to decide this.

What the rule lacks is that it doesn't protagonise either party (player or GM) to make any kind of statement and be believed. The players guess is as good as the GM's...why does the GM get to decide this and not the player (or vise versa)?

If that isn't being resolved, then there were no rules, just complicated text. The problem is, people can feel so passionate about just how they think the game world works, they see it as actually being the rules. But basically, no matter how much feel the game world would work in X way, that's no substitute for determining who gets to say how the world works. Without that, the structure has absolutely no value as a structure/set of rules.

I've been through stuff like this before, where I've had discussions here about what happens in an imaginary situation where you push a vase from a balcony when there is concrete beneath. Many posters, because of their absolute certainty of the result, assumed their statement that it smashes, is ahead of my own prefered statement (whatever that would be). However, absolute certainty is in no way a functional method to determine which peer gets to speak and which peer remains silent.

[Hans]

Now this example: The book lists the power of telekinesis allows X in a vague way that needs interpretation (like in palladium books). The GM says the NPC uses telekinesis to form a thin, powerful lance of force and automatically gets through the eye slit in the armour and kills the PC.

In this EXACT example, I agree that if the rules for:

* Telekinesis and the damage it can cause
* Player toughness and the damage they can take
* Armor, and ways to get around it

are all so vague that there is not a darn thing the player can say in response to this, then the structure isn't helping the player.  In fact, your example doesn't convince me that structure doesn't help the players and GM; it convinces me that there is no structure (of deficient or insufficient structure) in the game system you describe for the three things I list above. 

On the other hand, the game rules could be such that pencil thin beams of telekinetic force spearing the grey matter of PC's through the eye slits of their techno armor is completely reasonable and perfectly accounted for by the rules.  Regardless of what I THOUGHT were the rules, when the GM hands me that section of the book its clear that pencil thin murder beams with hyper accuracy are allowed for in the rules.  I might absolutely hate it, and be pissed as all get out, but bottom line is the structure hasn't failed me, my understanding of it has.  My tough luck, time to make a new character, preferably one with telekinesis and very high accuracy scores.

But basically, no matter how much feel the game world would work in X way, that's no substitute for determining who gets to say how the world works. Without that, the structure has absolutely no value as a structure/set of rules.

In a standard RPG (like we used to play in High School, or whatever), the GM has the ultimate authority.  So are you saying that rules are useless because the GM has the ultimate authority?  Are you saying that all strong GM games (pretty much the majority of games that have ever been created and played) are just illusionism? 

If you are I don't agree with you.  At a miminum, the rules can give the players a clue as to when the GM is being FAIR, beyond anything else they do. 

In the example above, I can see four possible situations, each leading to a different question:

1) This GM REALLY wanted to kill that player's character and stretched the rules to their breaking point to do so.  The GM designed an NPC expressly for the purpose of punching pencil thin holes through PC heads.  Do I really want to play with that GM?

2) The rules really do allow TK stillettos of death, and they are pretty easy to do, when you actually check the book.  Too bad I never noticed that before.  WOW!  Do I want to play in a game with them, and if so, where do I get one?

3) The rules allow for TK stillettos of death, but my understanding of the genre and setting of the game world don't.  TK stillettos of death really rub me the wrong way, and I can't bear the thought of them, especially when it is my character who gets stillettoed.  Do I want to play in a game with this GM, who obviously doesn't have the same perspective on the setting elements that I do?

4) The rules are essentially not really rules, and are just "complicated text" as you phrased it.  That means the game really is just an extra long, verbose version of Tunnels and Trolls, and everything is really "please the GM".  There may be a lot of words, but none of them really are rules, at least with regards to the TK/damage/armor schema.  Do I want to play in this game system, and if so, do I want to play a game of "please the GM" with a GM who is pleased by incinerating PC brains with single TK shots?

Now, there is one further situation, which I think actually happens all the time, but which is disfunctional.  It is a variant of 3), so I will call it 3a)

3a) TK stillettos of death suck!  EVERYBODY knows that telekinesis can't possibly cause TK stillettos of death!  Only a complete idiot would allow them, I don't care what the rules say!  Sure you could READ the rules to allow them, but that makes you a MORON!  How long can I argue with you and stop the game until I make you see sense, you stupid GM?!

[Callan S.]

Hi again,

are all so vague that there is not a darn thing the player can say in response to this, then the structure isn't helping the player.  In fact, your example doesn't convince me that structure doesn't help the players and GM; it convinces me that there is no structure (of deficient or insufficient structure) in the game system you describe for the three things I list above.

What I'm stabbing at is the illusion of structure. Here you've looked right past the magicians trick "Look, the rabbit was just hidden in that box all along! There's no magic/structure here!", when I want us to look at why the crowd can't see through the illusion.

Take this example, which is a bit better at this than the telekinesis one: The character has a hydrospout power and it's damage is listed at 2D6. The only other thing the description says is 'It can do whatever else you'd expect a spray of water could do'.

In game, the PC is on fire. The fire is mechanically applied at 6D6 per round. He says he directs the spout onto himself, to put all of the fire out. The GM does not agree that this happens.

Perhaps you already agree the powers description has no structural value.

But imagine the description is 'It can do whatever else you'd expect a spray of water could do, like putting out fires'

Does this have structural value? To me it has exactly the same structural value as the first description. It has not made clear, when it comes to how much fire is put out, who gets to say that. Player and GM are peers - who talks over the other? Whoever gets to, has made the real life assertion that they are not a peer, they are better in some way than the other person.

Either that, or you reference a social contract who determines who gets to say what. And when it's the social contract which determines this, what was the point of the rules?

Basically, I often see texts getting more and more complicated in this way (like in mage), while keeping the exact same structural value as they had to start with.

In a standard RPG (like we used to play in High School, or whatever), the GM has the ultimate authority.  So are you saying that rules are useless because the GM has the ultimate authority?  Are you saying that all strong GM games (pretty much the majority of games that have ever been created and played) are just illusionism? 

If you are I don't agree with you.  At a miminum, the rules can give the players a clue as to when the GM is being FAIR, beyond anything else they do.

Not illusionism, merely the illusion of there being a system, for the most part. Playing 'by the book' when really it's freeform play. When it comes to who gets to make so and so descision, only the social contract is referenced, not the book.

I think your confusing how you reference the books 'evidence', for the book resolving the situation. Like you have the murder weapon with the suspects prints on it and....he just goes to jail. I'm saying that evidence is meaningless. What will send him to jail is the justice systems/social contract based descision, not the evidence by its self. There is something between evidence and jail, and it's more important than the evidence.

My own preference is not an evidence system "Look, water puts out fire, m'kay!", it's concrete mechanics "Okay, I'll just apply the fire rules (The water attack reduces the fire damage by 2D6 every round it's applied to a target who is on fire)". Preferably with a hollow built into it for the SIS to be slotted in (the water attack reduces the fire damage by 2D6 or 3D6, exactly which is decided by the GM).

[Hans]

Take this example, which is a bit better at this than the telekinesis one: The character has a hydrospout power and it's damage is listed at 2D6. The only other thing the description says is 'It can do whatever else you'd expect a spray of water could do'.
In game, the PC is on fire. The fire is mechanically applied at 6D6 per round. He says he directs the spout onto himself, to put all of the fire out. The GM does not agree that this happens.
Perhaps you already agree the powers description has no structural value.

Sorry, I don't.  There are several useful pieces of structure in the situation you describe.  The water spout description has a magnitude (2d6) and a general statement about what it can do (anything a water spout can do).  The water spout can't be used, for example, as a spout of alcohol could, or a spout of napalm, or a spout of sulfuric acid.  Presumably it also has other useful pieces of structure which you have not recorded here, such as how often it can be used, or how many character resources (like power points or similar) it requires.  The fire also has some useful structure, it has a magnitude (6d6) and a frequency (per round).  I agree that there is a lot of wiggle room in the structure, but that doesn't mean it is either meaningless or useless. 

So what is the GM saying?  Is he saying "nope, water doesn't put out fire"?  If so, then that is not a failure of structure, it is a failure of imagination on the part of the GM, and a basic misunderstanding of thermodynamics.  Is the GM saying "its not in the rules, and since it isn't there, I won't let you do it"?  Then that is an abdication of GM responsibility, or pure laziness.  Is the GM saying "you can't produce enough water to put out the fire"?  A bit firmer ground, but still, mostly a failure of imagination, as it ignores the existing structure of damage magnitude (2d6 waterspout vs. 6d6 fire) that could be used as a guideline.  All these aren't a failure of structure, they are a failure of GM.

However, it could be the situation is this; I think the waterspout should put out 2d6 worth of fire per round, and after three rounds I will no longer be on fire.  The GM says "I rule that your 2d6 waterspout cuts only 1d6 per turn fire damage, and that if you use it over 6 turns, it will put the fire out.  Sorry, I just think Fire is 'stronger' than water"  If that is the case, then I would say the GM is simply doing his job; being the final arbiter when the rules need interpretation.  I may not like it, but its not enough to make me walk away from the game.  After the game, I may suggest, or even propose, to the GM a common "power" currency as a house rule to address the situation in the future. 

But imagine the description is 'It can do whatever else you'd expect a spray of water could do, like putting out fires'
Does this have structural value? To me it has exactly the same structural value as the first description. It has not made clear, when it comes to how much fire is put out, who gets to say that. Player and GM are peers - who talks over the other? Whoever gets to, has made the real life assertion that they are not a peer, they are better in some way than the other person.Either that, or you reference a social contract who determines who gets to say what. And when it's the social contract which determines this, what was the point of the rules?

As to the change in wording, I do think it makes a difference.  It has made clear something that might not have been clear before.  It is a useful improvement in the rules description of the power.  In fact, if the rule were worded with your 2nd wording, my first example is no longer possible.  The GM can no longer say "nope, water doesnt put out fire".  If he does, then he is either ignorant of the rule (in which case I need to point it out to him) or for some reason being a jerk (in which case, maybe I need to find a new game).

I agree that there are social contract issues in who can say what when; whether I can interrupt when someone else is narrating, whether I can speak in my characters voice during another persons turn, under what circumstances can I make jokes out of character.  Some games have explicit rules for this (in the extreme example, Puppetland); most don't.

But I think I must be misunderstanding you, though, because you seem to be saying that any game that gives one person the FINAL say over the others is bad, that it is setting up one player as "better" than the others.  I don't think you can be saying that, because it flies in the face of the reality that pretty much every RPG has a "buck stops here" mechanic in it; some rule, written right in the book in black and white, that says who has final say when.  This does not make that person "better" than the other people, and it is not a social contract issue.  The social contract says "we all agree to play this game", but the game rules are the ones that say "this person gets final say".  

In Dust Devils, it is the person who gets the high card.  In Capes, it is the person who wins the conflict.  In Heroquest, its the GM, except when the player uses hero points, in which case it is the player.  In D20, The Riddle of Steel, and just about every RPG designed before the Forge, it is simply the GM.  I cannot think of a game that does not have a rule for this.  Many of the Forge games have been more egalitarian in how this power is shared, but if anything they are MORE strict about who has final say, not less.

Now you what you may be saying is "I don't like any of the games of the last type you mention, where only the GM has final say.  I prefer a more egalitarian sharing of this power"  In which case, as a matter of taste, I agree with you, I prefer them as well.  You may be saying "I think any games of the last type you mention are flawed, because they place too much power in the hands of one person."  I wouldn't go quite that far, but I can see where you are coming from, and will not argue that point.

Basically, I often see texts getting more and more complicated in this way (like in mage), while keeping the exact same structural value as they had to start with.

I have seen this happen as well, and I agree with you that just making things more complicated doesn't make it more structured.  I agree that Mage has many examples of this.  You and I disagree, I think, on whether their was structure to begin with.

Not illusionism, merely the illusion of there being a system, for the most part. Playing 'by the book' when really it's freeform play. When it comes to who gets to make so and so descision, only the social contract is referenced, not the book.

 
Again, see above, I disagree with you on this.  It is exactly the rules that determine who gets to make the decision.  I would be afraid of a game that didn't provide at least some rule for this.  You seem to see this issue as one of black and white ('by the book" vs. "freeform") but I think there is a massive grey area between the two.

I think your confusing how you reference the books 'evidence', for the book resolving the situation. Like you have the murder weapon with the suspects prints on it and....he just goes to jail. I'm saying that evidence is meaningless. What will send him to jail is the justice systems/social contract based descision, not the evidence by its self. There is something between evidence and jail, and it's more important than the evidence.

  I agree with  you that evidence ALONE is not enough, but can't agree when you say the evidence is meaningless. 

My own preference is not an evidence system "Look, water puts out fire, m'kay!", it's concrete mechanics "Okay, I'll just apply the fire rules (The water attack reduces the fire damage by 2D6 every round it's applied to a target who is on fire)". Preferably with a hollow built into it for the SIS to be slotted in (the water attack reduces the fire damage by 2D6 or 3D6, exactly which is decided by the GM).

I honestly can't tell the difference between the two situations you describe above.  What if it were a green jello spout instead of a water spout?  You would still be in the situation above, unless their are "green jello vs. Fire" rules.  What I am trying to say is that all rules systems are evidence systems.  The only question is how organized they are and how open to interpretation they are in any circumstance.  In fact, I would argue that all RPG's consist of two things:

1) a body of rules/evidence to support what, when, and how a player can introduce stuff into the SIS

2) a rule that determines who has the final say when there is a conflict between players over the exact interpretation of 1), or when 1) does not address the current situation.

Both are 100% requirements to an RPG.  They work together to help the players navigate through the game.   If you only have 1), you have a recipe for arguments.  If you only have 2) you have a recipe for illusionism. My original problem with T&T (way back at the beginning of the thread :) ) was that it only had 2), and precious little of 1).

BTW, Callan, enjoying myself immensely, but I fear we may be devolving into the mutual misunderstanding spiral that occurs sometimes on forums; the kind of situation where if we could hold a real convesation in person (vs. long posts back and forth) we would come to some mutual conclusion, but on the forum we just keep circling each other.  If you feel that is the case, let me know, and we can agree to disagree until, say, GenCon, where we can have it out, 2 falls out of 3, in the Boffer LARP area.  :)  But if you are still having fun, lay on, McDuff!

[Ron Edwards]

Although I applaud the courtesy and enthusiasm being shown here, I think that the crucial point of "hey, are we getting anywhere" may have been passed.

I'll toss authority for continuing this thread to Erik (epweissengruber) - Erik, is the thread topic over? If not, can you provide some concrete focus for its current goals?

Best,
Ron