Hello!

I've had a bit of realization recently. I've started GMing a game with a mix of experienced roleplayers and newbies. I'm applying some Forge techniques, and generally with great success, so that aspect of play has been really promising. But a few problems cropped up (you can read about the first two sessions here, if anyone is interested). Discussing it with the players has led me to thinking about the following two things:

The First Thing

This is probably old hat for all you regulars. If you feel that way, feel free to skip down to the Second Thing.

Railroading is usually discussed as an issue of forcing others to follow your own agenda, misusing your authority to push the other players into your idea of what they should be doing, and so on. What isn't discussed as much is how it affects the way you play the game even when you aren't actively making efforts to railroad.

My thesis, essentially, is that the desire to see a predetermined outcome in the future makes a player withdraw from making meaningful contributions to the game.

In my "Princes & Prophecies" game, we had two particularly awkward incidents. In one incident, I felt that a player didn't contribute to a particular scene as much as he had the opportunity to do. I gave him free reign to basically jump in whenever he wanted, in whatever way he wanted, and make a cool scene happen. However, when he did jump in, it was to say "I run away into the woods", and I felt like he didn't really engage with the scene at all, leaving the rest of us hanging. I've discussed it with the player since then and discovered that he's really looking forward to a particular climactic scene. I'm thinking that play up until that moment might seem like sitting in a waiting room. (I've since gently pointed out to him that the scene he's hoping for is hardly guaranteed to happen. He saw my point right away, so I think this won't be a problem again.)

In the second incident, the players were investigating an NPC who they thought might have been involved in a conspiracy. I had determined when I wrote up the scenario that this particular NPC wasn't involved in the conspiracy, and was eager to get to the next part--possibly a cool scene I had been hoping would happen since the beginning of the game. It turned into a real power struggle, where one player really wanted the NPC to be involved, and started authoring elements to suggest that he was, and I was resisting. This also ties in to the second Thing (below).

Thinking about this has led me to think that when we look ahead to a cool event or thing we want to see, and expect to see, we disengage from playing in the moment. In the scene with the NPC, I'm sure I wasn't really participating in the sense of pushing the game towards some cool play.

I think that 90% of the problems I've had as a GM in the past are due to this--when I'm looking forward to some scene or some revelation or plot twist, everything becomes boring until we get there, so I am not really interacting with the players--I'm just trying to shut everything down so we can get to the next bit. The players feel lost, everyone gets bored and/or frustrated.

In games where the players have the power to contribute as authors, they can do this as well. Although in games with distributed authority no one can fully railroad the game, anyone can still withdraw from play by hoping to see their vision come out on top of anyone else's.

Does that sound reasonable? Am I missing anything major, or operating under some false assumptions?

The Second Thing

This stems from the first thing, as well as some posts I made in a couple of other threads recently. I expressed myself very poorly there, so I'm going to try again here. Rather than keep trying to derail other people's threads, I'm starting my own.

The Second Thing is a question: How do you adjust your scenario prep for the level of player authorship that is possible in the game?

In an old-school RPG, the GM has total authority. This also means that the GM must prepare everything about the game (or improvise it in play). There is little or no chance of players stepping on back-story, even though they can still totally screw up anything the GM has got planned for the game itself.

However, once you start playing in a system with a level of player authorship, you have to deal with the impact of player authorship on your scenario prep. How do you adjust your preparation to the level of player authorship in your game?

I don't think we need to talk here about player authoring messing up scenes you have planned or "plot" structure. The Forge concensus seems to be that such things are bad, unless expressly agreed upon beforehand. I am also of this opinion (as I said in the First Thing). However, most games with a GM still are based on some kind of back-story or Situation. Ron Edwards, in particular, has often said that games like the Pool are not "off-the-cuff" improvised ventures, but need to be prepped for play. In his words, a "lovingly prepped back-story" is an important, wonderful thing. So, how do you make that work when the players have the power to author material and could potentially conflict with something the GM has determined before play?

Example: In my game, the players are exploring a distant village (kind of like in DitV) and coming across a situation they must decide how to react to or deal with. However, as happened in the scene I mentioned, a player was trying to author content that directly contradicted my back-story (that NPC could not have been involved in the events the player was trying to suggest). This is an example of how these two things intersect in a negative way. I've since worked something out, but I'm worried about more such situations coming up.

Possible solutions include:

* The "No Myth" approach, if I understand it correctly--anything not yet introduced in play is not part of the picture, period. The GM's back-story is merely a collection of material he or she would like to introduce to play. If the players' contributions make that material impossible to include, the preparation is wasted. (An example of this is "Bangs" prepared by a GM before play. Some may be ignored, others may never get "thrown in" at all.)
* Social contract: The players agree not to improvise content in certain areas of play. (This sounds a little problematic to me, being kind of hard to define.)
* All backstory is known before play begins. There are no "GM secrets".

Any others?

---

So, how do you balance back-story prep with player contributions?

Looking forward to your suggestions, or any experiences you've had which relate to these two issues.

Sincerely,

Paul

Paul wrote:
So, how do you make that work when the players have the power to author material and could potentially conflict with something the GM has determined before play?

Tony,

That makes total sense.

But, just to be totally clear:

I'm not at all talking about "where the story will go". I'm talking about what has been determined about the past. For instance, if I, as Tolkien, have decided that the Ring corrupts everyone who uses it, and figured out the history of Middle-Earth based on that, what do I do if one of the players wins some kind of roll and narrates that Gollum was actually a monster who has earned some human qualities by having the Ring? (That sounds kind of cool, actually...)

What if one of the players decides that there are actually five rings made by Sauron? Or that the Ring wasn't made by Sauron at all but by Bilbo...

I'm just talking about the back-story--the events that took place before play even begins.

Best,

Paul

Hey Paul,

I think you might be confounding player authorship, with Director Stance (if you're familiar with that).  That's not the case.  In my Dogs in the Vineyard game and in my Sorcerer game, I as the GM have 100% total control what has come before and what NPCs want and are up to.  Nothing my players say or do will change that.  However, my players have co-authorship because I don't have any pre-prep resolution in mind for any pre-play situations or in-play conflicts.  The judgements they make and the actions they take on those judgements are 100% theirs and outcomes of conflicts *within the fiction* (not between players) are ceeded to the dice.

This is in fact my prefered way to play and in fact the way Sorcerer and Dogs in the Vineyard are written.

Now, if you WANT to ceed backstory and NPC behavior control over to the players that's a whole matter entirely.  I'm just saying that you don't have to if you want to bring player authorship issues into play.  So, can you clearify what your preference is?

Jesse

Gahhhh .... OK, I don't know if I'm going to be helpful to you or not, Paul. Some people have told me I'm a terrible bastard when talking about this stuff.

I'm going to say "you" based on your previous posts and my inferences from them. If "you" doesn't apply actually to you, in one of my sentences, just imagine a guy who's not you, but to whom the sentence does apply, OK?

You can consider the idea that narrational authority works best when its parameters are set in stone. Compare these three narrations (not real games, just made-up mechanics, but the points are extracted from my own play-experiences).

1. GM says, "Roll!" Player says, "I got a 20! Double damage" [rattle rattle, count + multiply] "82 points! I cut his fuckin' head off!" GM says, "Yeah!"

Sounds pretty standard, right? Well, hold on. You'll notice that the GM didn't narrate. The player did. The player totally narrated and the GM totally accepted it. So the first thing I need to get across to you is that this happens often. It's normal; people do it and don't even think about it, or notice that they cede narrational rights to one another all the time without any awful repercussions.

You're about to type, "yeah but." I know. This was the easy example with a minor, simple point. Just hold yer water and keep readin'.

2. GM says, "Roll!" Player says, "I got a 20! I get to narrate!" (launches into long and involved monologue about how this opponent is really his long-lost mother, to the consternation of the GM who'd been playing the NPC all along as someone totally different, say, Barnabas the stablehand) The GM is now forced to junk 80% of his prep and re-write the whole scenario in the next microsecond as the player looks at him expectantly.

That's the fear, right? It's a common one. You should have seen Jesse Burneko, a frequent poster in the Adept Press forum, express this fear in the most dedicated, nightmare-beyond-nightmare terms, a few years ago. (Hah! And Jesse just posted as I was typing! How's that for satisfying? pats own back)

I'm saying, this isn't what most people are talking about, when we talk about non-railroady Narrativist play. This is kind of a consensual-storytelling, make-it-up-as-we-go, round-robin type thing. Frankly, it's pretty boring in most circumstances and tends to create wandering, meaningless pseudo-narratives.

(All right, it can be done with some effort and very strong parameters with designated unknowns. I'm not saying it's impossible to play this way. But it's not what I'm talking about and what you've been expressing interest in, in all those previous threads.)

3. GM says, "Roll!" [rattle rattle] GM says, "I got a 4!" Player says, "I got a 20! I win, and that lets me narrate! Ummm ... OK, he knocks the sword out of my hand, but I get inside and grab him and flip him! His mask comes off!" GM says, "And guess what ... it's Barnabas, the stablekeeper!" Player: "No kidding? Holy shit!"

This one is the one I want you to pay attention to.

a) In this case, the player knows that he has no authority over back-story or prep (i.e. who that is, wearing the mask), but has decided it's time to find out. He could just as well have decided to kill the guy and say he tumbled into the chasm, still wearing his mask, and his PC would thus never find out who it was. But the player also knows he cannot invent who is wearing the mask - his authority extends to finding out the GM's prep, not inventing it retroactively.

b) The GM knows that the player has this limited/circumscribed power, and he also knows that he (the GM) must cede narrational authority for this significant outcome (the guy rolled a 20, after all) without knowing which way that would go. But he also knows that Barnabas is the guy in the mask, and that he will be called upon, as GM, to play accordingly no matter what is narrated. For example, if the player states the guy is dead, then hey - Barnabas is dead, identity known or not.

Does that help at all? I'm pretty sure you are used to putting narrational authority (how it happens, what happens), plot authority (now is the time for a revelation!), and situational authority (who's there, what's going on) together into one basket. I'm trying to help you tease them apart a little.

Best, Ron

Ahey, :)

Paul, you're getting some good answers on your Second Thing, which is way cool, but I wanted to add support for your First Thing.

Paul wrote: the desire to see a predetermined outcome in the future makes a player withdraw from making meaningful contributions to the game. [...] when we look ahead to a cool event or thing we want to see, and expect to see, we disengage from playing in the moment.

There's some very well made points in this thread.

In anything approximating a traditional game (which is what we are talking about here) there is going to be a certain amount of "vision" provided on the part of the GM--that's still there and it's a huge advantage of having a traditional GM.

As has been stated, I think very clearly, the play (for most even semi-traditional games, which DitV and Sorcerer, I think, fall into) is going to be well informed by that vision.

Here's some stuff I have seen work fruitfully towards "that scene you want."

1. The GM talks meta-game. I was told (by the guy who runs my Sorcerer game) at one point during the adventure that "X was going to happen no matter what." I mean, it was entirely clear that X was going to happen--and I *got* that it was essentially some in-play framing for the set-up of the whole adventure. But having the GM *say it* (and thereby set up the "next scene") would have been pure gold if I'd really disliked having it happen (it was my character being set up and humiliated before the court--and if I wasn't on the same page with my GM, I might've really objected to that).

So talking about what hand you are taking (or at least making it real clear maybe without being explicit) can help.

2. The same group plays with a player who is not always on the same page as the rest of us. She has tended to disengage from plot-hooks in the past (including during a Trollbabe game) and, when I ran a game for her--and she (a) didn't provide me with a requested player-generated plot-hook and then (b) avoided mine, I felt (I think) like you did when the guy ran off into the woods.

In this case, while (again) we were not allowing players to narrate situational-backstory (and really, as with what Ron says, I'm not sure how well that'd work for most of the games I play), I had two learning experiences.

.- Get player buy-in. I'd stated that I wanted something that engaged the PCs. I got it from two of the three and ran the game. If I'd had a talk with her about engaging with *my* plot-hook (sight unseen) since she didn't provide her own, that might've averted my sudden sense of disorientation when my scene with her collapsed.

.- In the *next* game I ran for her, when she avoided a scene, she did something really cool: she proposed *another* scene! We stopped for a minute and she was like "Do I have to do X?" and I said "No. You don't--seriously." And she said "Okay. I don't. But I'll go to a party instead."

It took a bit of fancy footwork to, really fast, come up with a party-themed encounter--but it was actually a very good move. It kept her character consistent, meant I wasn't imposing my scene on her, and wasn't just totally passive on her part.

I think it might be fair to, out of game, have the conversation you had with the guy right there. After all, Players may not have the same level of directoral power of the back-story as a GM in most games--but they're still responsible for their share of pacing and proactive activity. If a Player disengages with the GM, I think it's fair to ask the player to contribute something and try to work with them.

-Marco

Great post, Marco.

Let's see, it brings up something else too, which is a pretty common formalized version of what Marco is describing.

GM: "All right, you guys see the lamps of Apple Town up ahead. You've arrived."

Player: "I spend a Story Token. My uncle lives here! We go to his cottage."

In games with such mechanics (or, in fact, games without such mechanics but in which such suggestions are welcome as suggestions), the GM pretty much has to be ready for some footwork, once in a while. If his prep, for instance, includes the assumption that no one in this town knows any of the PCs, well, he might have to think a bit.

But on the other hand, and presuming that the group is fully aware of these mechanics or these suggestions, it's really not as prep-destroying as you might think. The GM might have been wondering how the hell to get these guys into the conflicts of the town, and the uncle will be a much better entry into an informational scene than the random encounter with a talkative pickpocket the GM had been planning. Or maybe he can make the big villain of the scenario into the uncle! Perfectly fine and more fun to GM, frankly.

So with a little mental preparation and agility, and bearing in mind that, contrary to popular belief, people don't tend to spend such tokens (or whatever) except to make things better, even this level of "interference" doesn't introduce chaos and awfulness into the experience of play.

The only GM who needs fear such things is the one who wants every scene to go as planned, for every PC decision to go as anticipated or as directed at the time, for pre-written lines to be spoken, and for the whole session to turn out just as scripted.

Best, Ron

(This is a little sketchy as I'm writing late at night. If it doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify, and I'll
rewrite it tomorrow when I'm more awake. I've tried to separate responses to various people or topics, as well.)

Jesse,

jburneko wrote:
I think you might be confounding player authorship, with Director Stance (if you're familiar with that).

Now, if you WANT to ceed backstory and NPC behavior control over to the players that's a whole matter entirely.  I'm just saying that you don't have to if you want to bring player authorship issues into play.  So, can you clearify what your preference is?

Ron wrote:
2. GM says, "Roll!" Player says, "I got a 20! I get to narrate!" (launches into long and involved monologue about how this opponent is really his long-lost mother, to the consternation of the GM who'd been playing the NPC all along as someone totally different, say, Barnabas the stablehand) The GM is now forced to junk 80% of his prep and re-write the whole scenario in the next microsecond as the player looks at him expectantly.

That's the fear, right? It's a common one.

Ron wrote:
Does that help at all? I'm pretty sure you are used to putting narrational authority (how it happens, what happens), plot authority (now is the time for a revelation!), and situational authority (who's there, what's going on) together into one basket. I'm trying to help you tease them apart a little.

Marco,

I'm not sure I quite follow you here:

Marco wrote:
.- Get player buy-in. I'd stated that I wanted something that engaged the PCs. I got it from two of the three and ran the game. If I'd had a talk with her about engaging with *my* plot-hook (sight unseen) since she didn't provide her own, that might've averted my sudden sense of disorientation when my scene with her collapsed.

I think it might be fair to, out of game, have the conversation you had with the guy right there. After all, Players may not have the same level of directoral power of the back-story as a GM in most games--but they're still responsible for their share of pacing and proactive activity. If a Player disengages with the GM, I think it's fair to ask the player to contribute something and try to work with them.

Hi Paul,

Again, I'm phrasing this post harshly due to my own personality flaws. I am aware that in some cases, you've provided examples which show you don't always accord with my "you" as utilized below. When "you" doesn't apply, please apply it to some guy who is not you. I know I said this before, but it really matters in this post.

PART ONE: FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT

As it turns out, it's easiest to respond by taking your last point first. I'll expand those authorities I talked about into a list, with a key addition and with the order changed for greater clarity:

Content authority - over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom

Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material - and look out, because within this authority lies the remarkable pitfall of wanting (for instances) revelations and reactions to apply precisely to players as they do to characters

Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player

Narrational authority - how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution (including the entirety of IIEE), and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize

You wrote,

1. Is it even possible to separate them in any meaningful way in play? Isn't there tons of overlap between those three types of authority?

2. Although I see what you're saying (given my reservations in the previous sentence), I'm not sure what you're getting at by getting me to look at it. If there's more coming, great, I follow you, let's carry on. If not, I'm not sure why you're trying to get me to understand those distinctions or how it deals with my question.

When you play the Pool (I'm thinking particularly of your "Jasmine and the Pool" game) with a solid back-story in mind, how do you (or how would you) react to some unexpected narration that clashes with your back-story? Your account makes it sound like there was no incongruity between playing the Pool and using a predetermined back-story.

(I'm also thinking of games that allow players to state goals, or set the stakes of their actions. For example, in an interrogation scene, a player might be able to say, "I want to roll to find out what his connection to the mafia is," and if he is successful, then the victim of the interrogation is involved in the mafia, period. Those two examples are really the same thing in slightly different packaging, as far as I'm concerned.)

In one incident, I felt that a player didn't contribute to a particular scene as much as he had the opportunity to do. I gave him free reign to basically jump in whenever he wanted, in whatever way he wanted, and make a cool scene happen. However, when he did jump in, it was to say "I run away into the woods", and I felt like he didn't really engage with the scene at all, leaving the rest of us hanging. I've discussed it with the player since then and discovered that he's really looking forward to a particular climactic scene. I'm thinking that play up until that moment might seem like sitting in a waiting room. (I've since gently pointed out to him that the scene he's hoping for is hardly guaranteed to happen. He saw my point right away, so I think this won't be a problem again.)

In the second incident, the players were investigating an NPC who they thought might have been involved in a conspiracy. I had determined when I wrote up the scenario that this particular NPC wasn't involved in the conspiracy, and was eager to get to the next part--possibly a cool scene I had been hoping would happen since the beginning of the game. It turned into a real power struggle, where one player really wanted the NPC to be involved, and started authoring elements to suggest that he was, and I was resisting.

Thinking about this has led me to think that when we look ahead to a cool event or thing we want to see, and expect to see, we disengage from playing in the moment. In the scene with the NPC, I'm sure I wasn't really participating in the sense of pushing the game towards some cool play.

I think that 90% of the problems I've had as a GM in the past are due to this--when I'm looking forward to some scene or some revelation or plot twist, everything becomes boring until we get there, so I am not really interacting with the players--I'm just trying to shut everything down so we can get to the next bit. The players feel lost, everyone gets bored and/or frustrated.

In games where the players have the power to contribute as authors, they can do this as well. Although in games with distributed authority no one can fully railroad the game, anyone can still withdraw from play by hoping to see their vision come out on top of anyone else's.

Hi Paul,

The characters were members of a secret organization that defends western civilization from a shadowy "enemy." They had been trained since they were very young (their Social Security Numbers being a numerological code that let the agency find recruits from birth) and their memories were *mostly* wiped. They were absolute bad-ass assassins--but there was a lot about the structure of the covert war they were in that they didn't know.

They also led crushingly mundane lives most of the time.

I instructed them to come to the table with an on-going problem that was coming up for them in their normal lives. It should be something they as Players found "engaging" (interesting? fun? etc.).

1. One player made a suburban house-wife (with a license to kill and a speciality with escrima knives). The local high school was cancelling her daughter's soccer team and reducing her son's science-team in order to promote its football team. Her husband, being an alumnus, greatly supported this move ... but she was furious.

This was the kind of problem you could not solve with combat skills.

2. One player made a school teacher from "across the tracks" who tended to protect his students from gang violence. This was the kind of problem you could solve by being a bullet-dodging combat machine. He didn't have a *specific* problem--but it wasn't hard to come up with one (a student came to him for help).

3. The player in question made an interesting character who was an unscrouplous realestate salesman who would sell houses to people beyond their means and then sell them again and again when the family was forclosed on.

But there was no conflict. The character was plenty okay with doing this. It was unethical but not illegal. It wasn't especially interesting to me to have some wronged family be upset about this.

But I had some ideas: I opened the scene with a family (family man, young daughter, concerned wife) looking at the house. Would she torpedo this (sympatheic) family? Yep. No conflicts there.

But there was another guy looking at the house as well--one who could see right through the character. He approached the character after and explained that he was a con artist who had a mark ... and the con needed a real estate guy--without morals.

And the player was like "no way"--and walked out on him.

Which left me without much to do with the player except run a very brief scene where the character read about the death of the con artist and learned that other stuff going on in the game had connected to that plot-thread (but there was no real RP'ing action).

What I'd Like To Have Said
"We got scenes commin' up that are  not related to your sleeper-cell kill-team stuff, you gotta either rationalize engaging with what *I* come up with, come up with something else good *yourself*, or be okay with really short scenes ... and really short scenes aren't so good for me--I consider that a failure of the game, pretty much (if not a catastrophic one)."

Alternatively (but not as good)
"We can't start this session until everyone has a conflict. So we may not be gaming this week."

Or Even
"Since you didn't give me a conflict, here's what'll happen: this guy will make you an offer to do something shady dealing with real estate--and you'll take it. How's that? Even if it seems like a bad idea in some dimensions or you don't trust the dude? Because you are greedy!"

Note
I will note that in the second game I'm running for the group, the characters all had something go catastrophically wrong in their lives and I told them, in the pre-game write-up that they would be offered a solution ... and they would take it. I didn't say what it would be (it was an offer to come to a self-help seminar--which used dangerous techniques grounded in a hidden alternate reality ... ) and I pointed out that skeptical characters would rightly see this as unlikely to work. It was okay to be cynical--but they had to take the offer.

We had some difficulty nailing down "what went wrong" (a character's first draft had them on the run from mobsters--something that wouldn't work real well given the much slower starting pace of the game)--but I *did* get buy-in and there was zero concern on my part that when I made the offer it'd be accepted (even the the characters were less than enthasiastic about it).

Izzat clearer?

-Marco

Hi everyone,

In case anyone is wondering, I know Paul and am the "disenchanted gamer" in the Prince & Prophecies game (and the player of Loryn, the bastard that ran off into the woods). :)

This is my first post on this message board. Thanks for setting it up, there's some really neat discussion going on here. Mind you, I can't follow a lot of it because I lack the knowledge of the jargon. For instance, what an "SIS" is. It would help if, like in academic papers, you always spell out the acronym or abbreviation the first time it's used.

First: thanks Ron for the excellent and well-thought-out post. I think you've really pegged the nail on the head here, and what's more in a way that neither Paul nor I even considered.

Ron wrote:

Content authority - over what we're calling back-story, e.g. whether Sam is a KGB mole, or which NPC is boinking whom

Plot authority - over crux-points in the knowledge base at the table - now is the time for a revelation! - typically, revealing content, although notice it can apply to player-characters' material as well as GM material - and look out, because within this authority lies the remarkable pitfall of wanting (for instances) revelations and reactions to apply precisely to players as they do to characters

Situational authority - over who's there, what's going on - scene framing would be the most relevant and obvious technique-example, or phrases like "That's when I show up!" from a player

Narrational authority - how it happens, what happens - I'm suggesting here that this is best understood as a feature of resolution (including the entirety of IIEE), and not to mistake it for describing what the castle looks like, for instance; I also suggest it's far more shared in application than most role-players realize

Great thread!

I can think up examples of all kinds of different splits of authority, except for one player having narrative authority and another player having plot authority in the same scene. Ron, could you give an example of a scene with that kind of split, please?

- Frank

In my "Princes & Prophecies" game, we had two particularly awkward incidents. In one incident, I felt that a player didn't contribute to a particular scene as much as he had the opportunity to do. I gave him free reign to basically jump in whenever he wanted, in whatever way he wanted, and make a cool scene happen. However, when he did jump in, it was to say "I run away into the woods", and I felt like he didn't really engage with the scene at all, leaving the rest of us hanging. I've discussed it with the player since then and discovered that he's really looking forward to a particular climactic scene. I'm thinking that play up until that moment might seem like sitting in a waiting room. (I've since gently pointed out to him that the scene he's hoping for is hardly guaranteed to happen. He saw my point right away, so I think this won't be a problem again.)

I've since gently pointed out to him that the scene he's hoping for is hardly guaranteed to happen.

Hi Frank,

Arrrrrghhh!

Narrational, not narrative.

Narrational = which actual person talks and what they say; in this case, specifically pertaining to in-game resolution

Narrative = pertaining to what fictional conflicts occur, how they finally are resolved (again, in fictional terms, not procedurally), and the emergent themes

I'm not frustrated at you, Frank, but at the native speakers who persist in tying themselves in knots over this extremely simple difference in two words which share linguistic roots but are about two incredibly different things. Nineteen times out of twenty, when someone blathers about Narrativist games or Narrativist play, they are only talking about narrational techniques and thus spread confusion and blight across the land.

OK, I'm done. But everyone who screws this up, consider yourself smacked by a thrown hamster. I have a big bag of'em.

One person has narrational authority? Another has plot authority? Easy as pie.

Bob: "You cut his head clean off!" (narrational authority)

Bill: "The lady Samantha comes running up - 'You bastard,' she cries. 'Guards! Arrest him!'"

In this case, the narrational authority is extremely limited, because that's all the guy has. People are so accustomed to the types of authority being lumped together that they often think narrational authority must at least one, if not all, of the other kinds. It doesn't have to.

I suspect that you were thinking that narrational authority had to include some plot authority, and in a lot of games that's the case. The Pool allows it, intermittently, for example. But in this case, if you say that Bill has the latter, then, well, he does, and Bob doesn't.

Although I'd really rather see further questions about this be taken to Actual Play threads of their own. I can see about fifteen objections to my little example flaring up already based on 'what if - then" constructions ...

Best, Ron

P.S. It's probably time for the rest of us to give Paul a chance to respond.

Yeah, a little inter-lingual confusion here. Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense.

- Frank

Wow. This discussion is getting really intense. Thank you all for participating!

Ron, thank you, especially, for that extremely thorough and lengthy post. Just for the record, I don't feel offended or attacked by anything you have said--quite the contrary, and I'm glad you've taken the time to do so.

This discussion has been fascinating and fruitful for me so far. I hope GenCon won't prevent it from continuing, even if it has to continue at a glacial pace.

A lot of things have been brought up, so I will try to answer the ones I feel I can answer at this point, and leave the ones that I'll need to go home and think about for a while.

Here we go:

----

Marco,

That clears up what you said beyond any reasonable expectations. Thanks! I will definitely be taking your advice in the future.

---

Dav,

Dav wrote:

I've since gently pointed out to him that the scene he's hoping for is hardly guaranteed to happen.

This is where my brain skipped a beat.

All right, here is the Thing... [...] your player specifically said that he and his character wanted to participate and even possibly direct Scene X!  Your Job, as GM, is to make that happen.

You two should be conspiring to work at this, not mentioning it and separating. 

To be honest, his lack of colorful descriptions and narration is MUCH less important than this. 

I realize I have a whole mess and passels of general ideas on how to run and create a game for your players and their characters, but, in my defense, I run the best damn games you ever did see (often due to players that "get it", but also because, well, I know how to hook 'em, and I know how to get my players to conspire WITH me, rather than AGAINST me, tres` important).

Paul wrote:
From there, play progressed very smoothly. I decided that I would try to get each player to frame their own scenes, and was surprised by how easy and natural it felt. It was something I'd read about before, and it always sounded very scary and artificial on paper. However, it turned out to be very similar to what I had been doing as a GM for years--I would turn to each player and it would go something like:

--"What would you like your character to do now?"
--"I want to confront the Captain of the Guard about [...]"
--"How do see that happening?"
--"Well, maybe I'm walking by his tent and find him eating breakfast..."
--"Perfect! Let's go!"

Ron wrote:
OK, that was the easy paragraph, and I know it didn't answer your question. Here's the basis for my answer: I'm also pretty sure that you think that giving up those reins also means giving up situational authority and content authority, and that's what I want to concentrate on now.
[...]
And similarly, like situational authority, content authority was left entirely to my seat at the table. There was no way for a player's narration to clash with the back-story. All of the player narrations concerned plot authority, like the guy's mask coming off in my hypothetical example above, or in the case of the Jasmine game, the one suitor becoming a popular rather than sinister guy through his actions.
[...]
But it is a technique of a specific game, and not even a required one within it. It does not exist in The Pool's rules, and in fact, is defined out of them given the rules that are there. (Many people think The Pool is some kind of free-form, make-it-up, la-la kind of fairy role-playing. It's totally not. I claim it's as rules-heavy as Phoenix Command.)

Giving an MOV is like taking control of the game for a few moments. You can describe your character’s actions, the actions of those around him, and the outcome of those actions. You can even focus on less direct elements of the conflict such as what’s happening in the next room or who’s entering the scene.

Follow-up:

1. In the future, I will make a separate post to answer each person's questions. That should be clearer and easier to read, and I think is the "standard" here on the Forge.

2. Rereading this conversation (including my own contributions), it seems to me that we, as group, are operating on slightly different interpretations of Ron's four categories. For instance, I think some people see "the Vikings will attack at noon!" as Plot, some as Content (they left their homeland two months earlier), and some as Situation (in this scene, the Vikings come in to complicate things). Ron, am I correct in saying that you would consider that statement as touching on all three?

Cheers,

Paul

Ron,

I can also see that my questions about the Pool are exactly what you specifically requested people not to post. My apologies. I would still love to hear your answer, whether here or by PM, but will try not to post anything like that again.

Thanks,

Paul

Paul mentioned that some people may be operating from different definitions of the authorities. I'm also a bit vague on where the boundaries of some of them lie. Here are a couple of questions about what authority would be needed for certain things.

Let's say two characters, Corrin and Andvari, man and wife, have made enemies. You'd need Situational Authority to say, "while they are sleeping, an assassin slips into their room and tries to kill them." Right?
What authority would you need to choose which enemy was attacking? Would Situational A. be enough, or would you also need Plot A.?
Also, could you say that a character who had previously been an ally was attacking? Would you need Content Authority for that, or would Plot A be enough?
What authority would you need to declare the reason for the attack?

Let's say they defeat and capture their assassin. What authority would you need to be able to say, "this former champion of an evil god is so impressed by our honour that he changes his ways and becomes a good guy" ? Is the changing motivations of characters during play covered by Plot or Content authority?

Ahey, :)

Darren, I can't claim to be an authority on the issue (no pun intended), but as an exercise in understanding, I'd like to try my hand at these. Ron, I hope that's OK, and please, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Darren wrote: You'd need Situational Authority to say, "while they are sleeping, an assassin slips into their room and tries to kill them." Right?

Darren wrote: What authority would you need to choose which enemy was attacking? Would Situational A. be enough, or would you also need Plot A.?

Darren wrote: Also, could you say that a character who had previously been an ally was attacking? Would you need Content Authority for that, or would Plot A be enough?

Darren wrote: What authority would you need to declare the reason for the attack?

Darren wrote: Let's say they defeat and capture their assassin. What authority would you need to be able to say, "this former champion of an evil god is so impressed by our honour that he changes his ways and becomes a good guy" ? Is the changing motivations of characters during play covered by Plot or Content authority?

Hmmm...

Darren and Joao--I may be wrong, but I think that this type of "what-if" conversation is what Ron was trying to avoid in this thread.

In the meantime, I think I'm beginning to understand my problem a little better. In short form:

   * The category of narrational authority has absolutely nothing to do with whether the information (it's hard not to use the word "content" here) is decided before play (like back-story) or during play (as is typical of most "narrational" input in RPGs).

Am I closer to being on the right track now?

Cheers,

Paul

If that's the case (avoiding what-if's), I'm sorry. But those examples weren't What If's, they were real examples from my current campaign, in which fate points (a form of authority distribution) were used to create situations. I generalised them a bit because of questions raised by the incidents and this thread.

Hi Paul,

Almost right! Just about almost there ... the only tweak is that your sentence is correct in the abstract, or definitional sense, but in practice, a specific role-playing group has to know, as a group, when and how information (especially what I'm calling content authority) comes into the SIS.

In other words, in group A, narrational authority might include content authority, but in group B, it does not. So in one of these groups, one cannot say 'Oh gee, narrational authority might or might not carry content, I guess" - it'll be fixed-in-place, or, as you discovered, difficulties ensue.

Making such standards explicit for a given game design is pretty historically rare, except for one or two constructions of authority. Design which tailors authority-distribution (between and within levels) is comparatively recent.

Best, Ron

Hi Paul,

I think you need to reread your stated views with a clearer definition of authority.

Paul wrote:
I see both of these categories as sort of hierarchical. My view on this is as follows:

  * The players hold the bulk of Situational and Plot authority. I, as GM, can fill in Situational and Plot stuff when the players feel uninspired, but will defer to them when they DO have something they want.
  * In the same way, I, as GM, have Content and Narrational authority, but the players can fill those in when I'm uninspired ("Does the blacksmith have a hammer on the wall?" "Uh, sure,"), but will defer to me in those arenas.

Hello, everyone.

I recently ran the third session of the game, which went much more smoothly. Everyone had more fun than in the first or second session, including myself. A few things are beginning to make sense to me, but some others are still unclear.

My main stumbling block is still the idea of the "separation" of the four authorities. Although I can see how one might conceive of them as entirely different areas, it seems to me that in play a lot of statements will belong to more than one category. For instance: a particular character X has a history of being famous for having the most perfectly-shaped hands in the kingdom (content, right?), and player Y is ignorant of that fact. Player Y knows that he has Narrational authority in a scene involving character X, but not Content authority. If Player Y then describes something about character X's "dirty, scarred hands clutching the sceptre", he has unwittingly stumbled across some Content "stuff", hasn't he?

In other words, I cannot see how the rules of (say) the Pool allow the GM to retain Content authority. I can see how one might have a discussion about this before the game, agreeing to play this way, but I don't see how the rules can enforce that. Is that what Ron meant--a social-level agreement before or during play? I can totally see how that might be the case, but Ron's particular choice of words keeps suggesting to me that he's talking about something else (see the quotes earlier in this thread). If he did mean social agreement, whoever had Content authority in the example (above paragraph) would have to tell player Y to change that part of his narration. But this sounds like it could be unpleasant in practice.

(What extant games have neat or innovative ways of defining this territory? Are there any examples we can discuss here?)

Anyhow, on to the game:

Play was much more like the first session of Princes & Prophecies, where I exercised very little Plot or Situational authority, except in reaction to the players.

Here are my thoughts, revised:

I am still sure that I want the "final say" on matters of Content, and on Narrational stuff as well (in other words, I can always decide whether or not I want a player to narrate a moment in play or introduce some back-story information, even though I could choose to grant it often if I wanted to).

Situational authority is still something I want players to be exercising during most of the game, but I've realized that I'm not entirely certain I don't want "final say" in terms of veto power. My ideal "image" of play is that all the players (including myself) will be using Situational authority equally (like, for instance, each framing a scene in turn). I think I'll need to try it both ways ("I have final say even though players exercise Situational authority" vs. "Situational authority is widely distributed") to really know whether I would prefer having "final say" in terms of veto power or not.

Plot authority, frankly, I find rather confusing, so I'm not sure what to say here. I know that in the last session of the  game I exercised fairly little of it and I enjoyed play more than in the second session, where I'd exercised a lot of it.

Jamie,

I think you're right on with your comments--it's what I've been thinking about myself, and I hope the above answers your question.

Web_Weaver wrote:
Hi Paul,

I think you need to reread your stated views with a clearer definition of authority.

[...]

For instance, It seems to me you want to have Situational Authority, after all its who decides in the end that counts, and you did have problems with the "I run to the woods" situation which implies you want to have the final say. Sure it may be your aim for players to suggest situations, but this isn't the same thing.

Hi Paul,

Reading your last post this bit seems odd:

Paul wrote:
Plot authority, frankly, I find rather confusing, so I'm not sure what to say here. I know that in the last session of the  game I exercised fairly little of it and I enjoyed play more than in the second session, where I'd exercised a lot of it.

Hi there,

Jamie, I'd like to paraphrase your question a little, because as written it might be read as a dichotomy where there is none.

Here's the real dichotomy, as I see it.

1. Plot may emerge from play through the resolution of situations. In such cases, "plot authority" may be thought of as a fully shared entity - as a thing, distinct from the other kinds of authority, but as a process, in this kind of play, arising from them rather than being inserted as a "thing" from the get-go.

Please note that planning, especially in terms of what I call Bangs, may be part of this. The distinction between and local definitions of "GM" and "player" may be thought of as roles within this process, just as cooks and headwaiters have different but equallly authoritative roles in an overall restaurant process.

2. Plot may be exerted upon the play-space, as a planned phenomenon - not only "this is where I'll introduce Big Billy," but rather planned outcomes and revelations and twists as well - "this is where Big Billy will make sure that Player-Character Bob will discover the clue, or grieve for his sister," or whatever. Certain kinds of play rely on this kind of plot approach, in which plot authority takes on a far more centralized role.

Don't be confused, either, by prep vs. improvisation. If this kind of plot authority is centralized and solid in the fashion I'm describing, then a skilled user can either utitlize pre-play prep or during-play improvisation to exercise it. If the group works well with this kind of play, then it typically becomes what Mike Holmes calls Participation play.

#1 and #2 each encompass vast ranges of other variables, and I fully expect discussion of this topic to flail wildly as people confound those variables with what I'm talking about. For one thing, extraordinary degress of "in character" intensity can be found in both.

Paul, does that make sense? I do think Jamie's onto something with the point about your own ease/difficulty with this issue. I also think it might be time for this thread to close, as processing the issues is already improving your enjoyment of play, and for you to continue to process them through play itself rather than further terminological or theoretical chit-chat here.

Let me know whether you want to keep going with the thread, or just provide some closing thoughts if you'd like.

Best, Ron

Thanks, everyone.

First of all, this discussion has been fantastic, and I've got lots to think about. My game has already improved from the advice given here. There are a few things I need to sort through in terms wrapping my brain around some of these concepts, but that I can do on my own time.

However, there a couple of loose ends I'd like to wrap up, if that's OK. I still need some advice on my game.

Getting It

First of all, since no one has taken to shouting "No!", I will assume that my stated preferences for this game make sense, and assume that I am therefore interpreting the four authorities correctly. Please let me know if that isn't the case.

For instance: Plot authority. In light of the couple of most recent posts, I am willing to say that Plot authority is in the players' hands in this game. Ron's explanation of how Plot authority can determine the need for other statements, or "causal relationships" between the four types of authority, as he put it, ties this up neatly. Plot authority is essentially consulted by the players to determine how to exercise Situational authority.

Example: Player X wants to know who the Masked Stranger is (i.e. he wants to exercise Plot authority). He narrates a Situation where the Stranger's identity will be revealed (probably they'll be a roll or something for whether the Stranger can avoid being revealed). The GM, exercising Content authority, reveals his identity.

Am I getting this right?

Seeking Help

Finally, what I would really like from this thread is advice on how best to explain this to my players and how to deal with any problems that arise in play due to cases of "mistaken Authority". While the third session went really well, I still don't have anything solid in place to avoid a problem like we had in the second session (the scene with the blacksmith).

I'm looking for good ways to reach an understanding with the players and deal with violations (unintentional violations, i.e. not social conflicts) of said understanding.

From the original post:

Paul wrote:
Possible solutions include:

* The "No Myth" approach, if I understand it correctly--anything not yet introduced in play is not part of the picture, period. The GM's back-story is merely a collection of material he or she would like to introduce to play. If the players' contributions make that material impossible to include, the preparation is wasted. (An example of this is "Bangs" prepared by a GM before play. Some may be ignored, others may never get "thrown in" at all.)
* Social contract: The players agree not to improvise content in certain areas of play. (This sounds a little problematic to me, being kind of hard to define.)
* All backstory is known before play begins. There are no "GM secrets".

Any others?

Is it even possible to separate them in any meaningful way in play? Isn't there tons of overlap between those three types of authority?

Hi Paul,

Your summary of Plot Authority = 100% correct. Awesome.

Telling your players - hey, up to you. Some people really dislike analytical or principle-based statements regarding stuff they do. If it's not about how it feels when they do it, then they don't wanna know. Based on your third session, I suggest simply continuing to play and exercise your own understanding and skills.

If you simply must present any specific thing to them from this conversation, I suggest pointing out that content authority lies with you, and that they can rely on you to provide it when desired. So (a) they can describe stuff and (b) they can cue you to provide some content, or that they'd like a conflict in order to get some. This is a pretty useful and jargon-free way to present it, I think.

To put it as simply as possible, stick with "prep content" or "back story," and distinguish it from "description," and then play it from there. You'll probably find that that's a relief to them, because some people's freeze-up with narrational mechanics lies with their misconception that they are supposed to be adding content.

Regarding The Pool and the Jasmine game, I'll tell you my viewpoint based on many discussions with James, although not based on the text one way or the other.

a) I do not think The Pool was written to provide players with content authority. This should be left to the GM and prep. The Pool is not a mere improv freeform activity in which we trade around "telling a story."

b) It obviously provides narrational authority, per use of Monologues of Victory. Each Monologue carries a strong optional possibility, to generate one-scene plot authority. I have noted many times that players vary greatly in their desire to exercise this option; many are stunned by the narrational authority alone and do not need to be pushed for more. Many stick with narrational authority and choose their instances to "upgrade" it to plot authority very carefully.

Example (winning roll to charm someone): "He smiles and takes my arm, and we whirl off together into the dance." (narrational)

Example (same situation, same roll): [same as above, plus] "He falls in love with me." (narrational + plot)

c) Situation authority is fuzzy, and in my view, is probably best left to the GM.

Regarding the Jasmine game, I didn't provide much instruction, but rather clarifications during play itself as people squinted or looked puzzled when they thought about using the Monologues. The opportunity to explain was easy to isolate, because a successful roll presents the mechanical choice of taking a die or narrating, so a built-in pause exists.

The fellow playing the successful suitor was the most experienced with The Pool, so he simply kept adding dice to his pool, to the maximum (from memory ... nine dice, I think), and then only used the Monologue when he really wanted to, i.e., winning Jasmine's heart.

Best, Ron

Okay, fantastic.

That does it for me. I will be happy to answer any further questions, or comments by anyone else who posted something here, but otherwise I'm done.

Many thanks to Ron in particular, as well as everyone else who participated.

All the best,

Paul