In a narrative game, I'm thinking that the most important function fulfilled by the mechanics is to determine who gets to say what happens. This contrasts with traditional games, where the mechanics often determine events. I've been equating "getting to say what happens" with "directoral power." I think this is correct terminology, but someone please chip in and corret me if it's not. :)

Anyway, this suggests to me that the core component of a narrative game will be the mechanic that distributes directoral power. The quality of such a game will be directly proportionate to the appropriateness of those mechanics.

Has anyone give thought to how directoral power should be destributed? That is, what should give the right to narrate? What actions should result in the acquisition of the right? In other words, what is important when determining the appropriateness of dishing out directoral power? I'm especially interested in hearing from the author of the Pool (James West, yes?) about the thinking behind the Pool's design decisions.

Nathan (Paganini),

I'd like you to back up a bit, because your question is itself flawed.

1) All role-playing games' mechanics' purposes are devoted toward establishing "who gets to say what happens," also called "narration." It has nothing to do, necessarily, with Narrativism by itself. (The "dice" never say what happens; their use must be validated by a human authority at the table, even in the most hard-core non-Narrativist play out there.)

2) As demonstrated by the other thread you started, you've been confounding Director stance with Narrativism pretty severely. That means that you should expand your question about the distribution of Director stance outwards to all of role-playing as well.

3) Looking at #1 and #2 together, I think you should consider that Director stance and saying what happens are two totally different things.

So you really have two questions, I think:

A) What is the variety and what are the consequences of distributed narration across a role-playing group, regardless of (or perhaps compared among) GNS?

B) When and how is Director stance formalized across the entire range of role-playing games?

Best,
Ron

wrote: uote>Ron Edwards wrote: Nathan (Paganini),
1) All role-playing games' mechanics' purposes are devoted toward establishing "who gets to say what happens," also called "narration." It has nothing to do, necessarily, with Narrativism by itself. (The "dice" never say what happens; their use must be validated by a human authority at the table, even in the most hard-core non-Narrativist play out there.)


I think maybe you need to give me a better explanation here; that statement doesn't quite look right to me. It seems to me that a lot of game designers put their prime effort into just that: Making their systems determine events, especially designers that are concerned with realism. They want the system to produce certain events, and only certain events. Sure, the players have to decide to honor the events that the system determines, but the decision to play any game system is, at the most basic level, an agreement to abide by the rules of that system. If a player goes against the events determined by the system, then he's breaking the rules / cheating.
<

quot;Ron]
2) As demonstrated by the other thread you started, you've been confounding Director stance with Narrativism pretty severely. That means that you should expand your question about the distribution of Director stance outwards to all of role-playing as well.

Here's narrative control without Narrativist decisions: My Fungeon game. Here's the root of it:

The system facilitates making monsters and traps, avoiding said traps for experience, killing said monsters for experience, getting loot, and gaining levels. Gamism all the way.

The system also designates a single Player as the narrator of events during a round of action. This is narrative control.

Hi Zak,

This post is just to say, "Right!"

That is, narration is a neutral term referring to who gets to speak, whether in terms of description, proposal/announcement, or (especially) finalized resolution. Narration is a necessary component of role-playing of any kind and has no special relationship to Narrativism.

Best,
Ron

Ron wrote: The "dice" never say what happens; their use must be validated by a human authority at the table....

Nathan wrote: Sure, the players have to decide to honor the events that the system determines, but the decision to play any game system is, at the most basic level, an agreement to abide by the rules of that system. If a player goes against the events determined by the system, then he's breaking the rules/cheating.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote:
The dice do not say what happens. They don't talk. I can't think of a single RPG in which the interpretation of Fortune mechanics is carried out solely by looking up the results on a table and reading the indicated section of text aloud, either.

Okay, the dice say I hit the orc and did 2 HP of damage.

What does that mean? How does that translate into narrative? What are the consequences? What happens next?

The rules do not prescribe every aspect of the result of every action, even in a Gamist Fortune-at-the-End tactical exercise. If they did, it would stop being an RPG, because there would be no scope for the playing of a role.

There've been a few places where Nathan has been off in his recent threads, but I can't say this is one of them. For some reason this particular statement is being disected and held under a microscope (for reasons I don't comprehend) and alot of really twisted logic.

Quite frankly Nathan's assertion that in some games the dice determine the outcome is 100% correct as far as the rules are concerned, and his example is spot on.

Assumeing players are playing rules as written, beating the THACO means "I hit" and rolling my damage dice is how many HPs I hit for. That result was 100% determined by the dice.

As far as it not determining the "narrative associated with it", who cares?

1) There are many many groups of gamers out there for whom "I rolled 18" "You Hit" "For 7 damage" IS the entire extent of the narrative.

2) Sure you can get all colorful about it, and sure the dice doesn't determine whether I describe the hit as a solid uppercut to the ribs or a deep thrust to the thigh...I decided that. But since that description has absolutely ZERO impact on rules as written play its entirely immaterial to the point.

I felt the need to point this out because I can't see the purpose of drawing a line in the sand about dice determining or not determining to begin with.

But if there is some value to making this distinction I think it should be limited to determining things with actual game impact. In many games dice do determine the bulk of what has game impact. Much of the rest is just flavor.

Heck RoS has damage tables where the roll determines which part of your body gets broken and bloody. Thats very Dice Determined in my book.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Okay, the dice say I hit the orc and did 2 HP of damage.

What does that mean? How does that translate into narrative? What are the consequences? What happens next?

Ralph wrote: Sure you can get all colorful about it, and sure the dice doesn't determine whether I describe the hit as a solid uppercut to the ribs or a deep thrust to the thigh...I decided that. But since that description has absolutely ZERO impact on rules as written play its entirely immaterial to the point.

And I think both you and Ron went overboard on this "dice does not determine" tangent.

What Nathan actually said was:

This contrasts with traditional games, where the mechanics often determine events.

I'm not arguing with Nathan's assertion about "traditional games, where the mechanics often determine events"; I'm supporting Ron's assertion that all games involve narration, and thus a decision about who gets to narrate (though that decision may be made ab initio and across the board, as in traditional games where all narration is ostensibly the province of the GM).

I'm thinking of abandoning the words "Narrativism," "Simulationism," and "Gamism" (at least in my personal posting) and substituting "N-mode," etc.; the "-isms" seem to obscure more than clarify, by suggesting connections that do not in fact exist.

Hmmm...I see where the explanation of narrative control is going, but what would be the "definition" of directorial power? Can someone post a few examples?

-dave

WhistlinFiend wrote: Hmmm...I see where the explanation of narrative control is going, but what would be the "definition" of directorial power? Can someone post a few examples?

Hey,

I am wincing throughout this discussion regarding the casual use of "power" vs. "stance."

"Stance" is a very specific thing in my essay. It has to do with relating to a character and to situating "oneself as a person" toward the imagined events of play.

"Power" is a tremendously vague thing, and relates to other equally vague things like "control," "right," "privilege," and so forth. It exists specifically and only toward relationships among the real people around the table (or whatever).

Nathan, you're throwing them around very much as if they were synonyms, and it's gumming things up.

Best,
Ron

Seth L. Blumberg wrote:

Ralph wrote: Sure you can get all colorful about it, and sure the dice doesn't determine whether I describe the hit as a solid uppercut to the ribs or a deep thrust to the thigh...I decided that. But since that description has absolutely ZERO impact on rules as written play its entirely immaterial to the point.

I'm not talking about hit locations, dramatic death scenes, and other "color" issues not handled by the rules. I'm talking about the integration of this particular combat round into a story. Unless the plot of the adventure is "All of you are kidnapped and dumped in the arena and must fight your way out"--which is a wargame and not an RPG at all--there are narrative issues that the dice don't cover.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Nathan, you're throwing them around very much as if they were synonyms, and it's gumming things up.

Hi Nathan,

I'm concerned with WhistlinFiend's post, mainly, and with this thread as a whole. His question shows that the confusion about power/stance is out there, and he's dealing with this thread - with that confusion in it - so I'm trying to correct it.

If you're clearer about the issue, that's excellent. Please help me in explaining it to others, which is an ongoing, never-ending task.

Best,
Ron

Wart, I absolutely agree with everything you've said, and I don't see how any of it relates to the point that I was trying to make.

Paganini wrote: For example, Violet grabbed a fire extenguisher off of the wall the other night in our Squeam game. I hadn't previously put one there, or even thought to, but it's the sort of thing that you would find on a university wall. Earlier on a more significant use of player Directoral power introduced an NPC.

Ok, I had to reread the essay again, and I'm still confused. From the essay:

Stance is defined as how a person arrives at decisions for an imaginary character’s imaginary actions.

In Actor stance, a person determines a character’s decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.

In Author stance, a person determines a character’s decisions and actions based on the real person’s priorities, then retroactively “motivates” the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

In Director stance, a person aspects of the environment relative to the character in some fashion, entirely separately from the character’s knowledge or ability to influence events. Therefore the player has not only determined the character’s actions, but the context, timing, and spatial circumstances of those actions, or even features of the world separate from the characters.

"Stance" is a very specific thing in my essay. It has to do with relating to a character and to situating "oneself as a person" toward the imagined events of play.

"Power" is a tremendously vague thing, and relates to other equally vague things like "control," "right," "privilege," and so forth. It exists specifically and only toward relationships among the real people around the table (or whatever).

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Nathan,
If you're clearer about the issue, that's excellent. Please help me in explaining it to others, which is an ongoing, never-ending task.

Jeff,

I think throwing around a term like "power" is totally confusing the issue

Stance implies that the player has the power to assume that stance.

Frex: if someone did a Confessional in InSpectres and the GM says, "What the hell are you doing? You can't just SAY it happens and it does!" then that's someone attempting a shift into Director Stance and getting the big smack-down from the GM.

- J

BTW, to aid Ron, I should define what I mean by Directorial Power. Essentially, that's the right given by the game, or social contract to employ such a stance. All stances require that the players be empowered to use them before they can, otherwise such use is seen as abuse or cheating.

For example, using author power in some games is not empowered beyond a certain point. Essentially, it cannot become visible. For example, I can decide to have my character go to a Tavern where I think there might be some action going on and retroactively say that the reason was that my character was thirsty. In the hypothetical game this is empowered, and the player can make such a decision. However, if I the player know that there is a fight going down at the Tavern, but my character does not, then no matter how much I claim that my character is thirsty, it will be seen that my player motive for going there is the real motive, and thus I have overstepped my allotted power.

In another hypothetical game, such a decision would be completely empowered. These splits of power between players and GM are an important part of the definition of how play occurs. Problematically, however, the power split is not always specified, and thus it occurs by unspoken social contract. The problem arises when someone who did not understand the contract oversteps the power allotted as seen by the other participants. This is related to the general GNS incompatibility problem and may be the most pervasive form of it.

Moral: always define your power splits well when designing, and before play.

Mike

Edited to add this in response to Jared's post:

Stances are only one form of power given in a game.

For example, the GM usually has arbiter power, to edit other's play, or censor it. In the case of Jared's example, the GM is employing some self derived Social Contract arbiter power to overrule the written rules which distinctly give the player the ability to make Director Stance decisions ucing the confessional mechanic. Note how this sort of drift ocurrs where since it is assumed in one game that a GM has such powers, that it is also asumed in another game wherin it is not the case.

For example, the GM usually has arbiter power, to edit other's play, or censor it. In the case of Jared's example, the GM is employing some self derived Social Contract arbiter power to overrule the written rules which distinctly give the player the ability to make Director Stance decisions ucing the confessional mechanic. Note how this sort of drift ocurrs where since it is assumed in one game that a GM has such powers, that it is also asumed in another game wherin it is not the case.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Wart, I absolutely agree with everything you've said, and I don't see how any of it relates to the point that I was trying to make.

Jaif wrote: I think what you're saying is just because you're outside the character and affecting things outside the character, you're not automatically omniscient and omnipotent. When you take the director stance, you still only have access to the knowledge and power granted to you. Hopefully this was set out clearly at the start of the game.

No, Wart, that was not at all what I was trying to say.

Every RPG is a narrative. It is a story (in the non-literary, non-N-mode sense) told collaboratively by a group. The rules of the game, as well as some parts of the social contract, exist to constrain the possible stories which can be told. Regardless of whether the rules mandate that certain portions of the narrative shall be determined exclusively by the result of randomizers such as dice, it is still a narrative, it is still being told by and for human beings, and there must still be elements of the narrative that are determined by the creativity of the group.

Thus, in every instance of play, no matter what modes of decision-making are being employed by the participants, at least one actual human being is exercising narrative authority.

It looks like this thread is mostly wrapped up, but another way of explaining this occured to me while I was driving home from my lesson this afternoon. In the interests of sharing, here it is. :)

During play, someone *always* has narrative power. Narrative power is simply the right to say what happens. It's a binary condition: you either have it, or you don't. Ron's Stances are a way of describing different parameters for *applying that right. When you have the right to narrate, the Stances tell you what you can do with it. Many games explicitly state or limit the way narrative power is to be used. By doing so, such games are implicitly suggesting the use of one of Ron's stances.

For example, online you'll run into many discussions over IC/OOC play. Such discussions are especially common among D&D players. Usually those discussion are actually about Actor stance. In a traditional D&D game, it's often considered cheating to setp outside of Actor stance. There's nothing particularly wrong with the other stances, but in those particular games players are supposed to limit themselves to Actor stance. In those same games the GM usually relies heavily on Director stance.

Another example, in the Synthesis playtest I was applying too much Directoral power as the result of a misunderstanding and Mike had to mention it to me. In that instance I had narrative power, but there were certain things that I (didn't realize I) wasn't supposed to do. There's nothing inherently wrong with the use of Director stance, but in this particular instance it was a Bad Thing because it was outside the proscribed framework for the game. Mike had to retrofit some of his material to make it match my scene, which is something he shouldn't have had to do; something he wouldn't have had to do if I'd limited myself to Author stance.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Thus, in every instance of play, no matter what modes of decision-making are being employed by the participants, at least one actual human being is exercising narrative authority.

Dice can't have narrative authority. They don't talk.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Dice can't have narrative authority. They don't talk.

Couple of questions:

1) What the hell? Seriously. "The dice have narrative authority."

2) Is anyone convincing anyone of anything here? It sounds like you guys are saying, "Is." "Is not." "Is!" "Is not."

3) Does it matter?

If I'm wrong on this, so be it, but I just read this entire discussion and can't find a single followed-through point, just a lot of conjecture.

Hey,

I agree. The questions that were initially raised seem to have been dealt with or de-railed. There were at one point about three topics at once; now, only the least relevant seems to have remained.

I strongly urge everyone to review the entire thread and decide whether you want to continue the discussion - and if you do, then consider starting a new thread about a very explicit topic. Right now, this thread is a bit like a thalidomide baby.

Best,
Ron

Dice are a mechanic to determine conflict or task outcome, on a pass-fail basis, whether binary or gradient. Humans interpret the dice results to fit the outcome to the current in-game circumstances. Some systems provide more granulated outcomes based on tables, hit location, or detailed gradients. Some systems use other resolution means than Fortune, but the interpretive requirement of a human narrator is still necessary to determine the particulars of what happens. "Power" (murky a term as it is) rests in who specifically gets to do the interpretation, and determines the scope of that narration.

Best,

Blake

(Edited to close a paren.)

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Dice can't have narrative authority. They don't talk.

Hey,

Did people miss my post, above? Please review.

Thanks,
Ron

Paganini wrote: Consider: In a game of D&D, one of my NPCs rolls enough to kill one of the PCs. Instead of killing the PC, I say something like "the Dragon misses you!" I justify this to myself that it's good for the story for the PC to survive. Zap! Wrong! I just cheated. The D&D rules don't say "do what's good for the story." They say "if your character's HP fall to zero, your character dies." In a D&D game the dice are often directly responsible for deciding whether or not a PC loses hit points. If deciding who lives or dies isn't narrative authority, I don't know what is.

It strikes me that at this point, the dice/authority part of this discussion is nothing but arguing semantics. I propose we either resume with the original topic or kill the thread.

Best,

Blake

Hi Blake,

In my opinion, the original topic has been resolved.

If anyone wants to pick it up, start a new thread.

If anyone wants to continue or develop other topics that have arisen in this thread, start a new thread.

Best,
Ron