It's assumed that in most traditional power split games that the player has control over his own character. And I think that's true, but simplifies things too much. I think that in many games, that the players don't really have final authority over what their character does. That is, if I say, "I drink my beer," then my character only drinks that beer if the GM refrains from correcting me ("No, you don't.") That is, in these games the GM is the final authority on absolutely everthing that goes on.

What happens, then, is that the GM's tacit approval represents the GM giving the player temporary Credibility to make these statements. The reason for this is fairly simple - it gives a unity to the vision of the events. That is, the GM can step in and "right" and wrongs that occur. He can declare that any of the character's intents are unsuccessful for whatever reason, and even that his intents are not what the player wants them to be. That is, in some games, I can declare that my character intends to fight, but the GM can step in and say that he's too scared to do so. There's no level at which the GM, in these cases cannot intercede.

Now, some games might have limits on the GM's power, or specifically give the player credibility in some cases. But, often as not, these things are left unspecified, meaning that tradition takes over. Then the GM who uses the "final authority" to protect the game from problems will use that method. Which makes it fairly common, IMO.

In fact, it's hard to tell when the player has any real credibility outside of the GM's ability to grant it in most play. They may, but observing a single case of expression, it may well not be observable who is in control. Is it the player making the declaration? Or can the GM veto?

Note that I'm not panning this method of play. I think that it's perfectly functional, and may even be superior to other methods. What's almost more important is how the GM apportions credibility to the players in this case. On a simple level, it's how relaxed the GM is about letting players do what they want. But there are a lot of other subtleties as well.

I bring this all up because of that classic example that I often describe. The player declares "I grab a mug from the table, and hit the ruffian with it." In the case of the example, the existance of the mug had not been established. The other example that get's brought up is the response to the question from a player, "What's in the closet?" To which the GM can respond with a description, or say, "I dunno, what's in the closet?"

In each of these cases, likely what's happening is that the GM is abdicating his throne temporarily in order to allow the player to rule on this particular case. He's donating to the player the Credibility he needs to establish the thing in question. OTOH, in another game, these things might somehow be a player's right to establish.

To the extent that this happens, the GM determines to what subjects the player can have Credibility. Usually this happens with a consistent pattern, but the "edge" of the pattern varies no doubt. That is, in one case, one GM might describe the contents of the closet, and later let a player do so. Some GMs are more stringent than others. Some games have more clear cut regulation of this, than others. But, even in games that supposedly have a "traditional" GM/Player split, I think that the actuality is much more complicated than we usually think, with the line of what the player controls much more blurry than we usually consider it.

So, am I talking about a real phenomenon here, or am I making things more complex than they need to be? What are the implications if this is true?

Mike

For me the big implication is this:

The GM is an elected official--assigned leader for the day. I've come, interested in sharing the GM's vision, co-creation (yes, with a power-split--but I'm more convinced than ever that it's co-creation) of a story (even and often outside of Narrativist gaming) with him/her.

So I expect the GM to use that power appropriately to my aims. If the GM asks another player "what's in the closet" and the player says "The ancient artifact we're looking for and a big heap'o'gold and a +12 M-16 of Holy Vengance" (and it's a broom closet in a peasant's house) I expect the GM to step the heck in and take care of that.

In other words, the GM is granted that power as a steward of the world I'll be inhabiting.

As a player, the GM can't really take away my credibility--well, he sort of can if I'm out-voted by the team--but I can then walk. If I reach for a mug on the table and the GM reminds me that it's a modern fancy dining table with thin-necked wineglasses, that'll work. If it's a fantasy ale-hall, I'd at least demand a roll.

And I expect I'd get it (after all, social problem-solving and interaction trumps GM-power).

-Marco

I think it's a real phenomena that stems from two issues: need for a final arbitrator and distrust of players.

The arbitration issue is pretty straightforward: we don't want everyone to start bickering over what happens if two of them happen to disagree. Assigning this to the GM is a simple and clear, if arbitrary and potentially risky, way to do it. It also makes sense, as the GM is usually the most familiar with both the system and the situation.

Distrust of players is a stickier issue. In some cases, you have novice players, who may need the GM's advice or approval to do things simply because they're still learning the system or setting. There's also the issue of players taking a scenario off its intended course, thereby forcing the GM to ad lib (something not all are comfortable with). But I think more often this distrust is a sort of instinctual and irrational fear (particularly present among people who are used to giving all the power to the GM). I know my friend's first reaction to Donjon's fact mechanic was "How do you keep the players under control?" as if this were somehow necessary in any game.

As for implications... I know that one of them is a tendency to create extremely passive players, to the extent that I've seen more than one player who really just play an interactive choose your own adventure. They wait for the GM to spell out options A, B and C, and then pick one when prompted. They've sort of given up hope that the GM would let them introduce an option D. Apparently some people do enjoy this, though I don't understand it.

Even if passivity doesn't extend that far, this style does generally discourage players from trying to take any authorship, even when the GM might willingly grant it. Of course, there's nothing inherently wrong with an all-powerful GM, especially when you have one who grants credibility to the players frequently and with a genuine interest in giving them some of the control.

By the way, it's worth pointing out that players can (and do) revolt and deny the GM credibility sometimes. Rules lawyers would be the classic example, as well as players who demand adherence to a setting ("Vulcans would NEVER do that!"). The "my guy" syndrome is another example in which a player is either defending his control over his character or using the assuming control over his character to justify other things.

Also, in the final analysis, the GM only has the authority the players give him, just like governments only have the authority the people give them. And they do it for all the same reasons people submit to governments they don't like: accepting the status quo, convincing themselves that's how it should be, fearing retribution, or believing that it's still better here than elsewhere.

Marco wrote: As a player, the GM can't really take away my credibility--well, he sort of can if I'm out-voted by the team--but I can then walk. If I reach for a mug on the table and the GM reminds me that it's a modern fancy dining table with thin-necked wineglasses, that'll work. If it's a fantasy ale-hall, I'd at least demand a roll.

And I expect I'd get it (after all, social problem-solving and interaction trumps GM-power).

You've brought up some very good points, certainly some that I've encountered in my ongoing Hackmaster game, but I'm personally curious if there are any games that do completely trust the players or anecdotes of the GM not simply being the dispenser of bite-size portions of game control. If it is possible, there have to be some really cool examples out there.

From my own recent experience, I'm playing a Hackmaster game where the GM has made it very clear that he would like to keep the game "tournament-legal." That means the rules and errata are adhered to, the magic items are within experience level limits, yada yada yada. Now, I've come to an agreement with the GM and the group that I have no interest in going to a Hackmaster tournament. I only have enough time in my schedule to play a session once a week and leave it at that.

With this being the case, the GM has given me a lot of freedom to (a) play around with the system in minor ways and (b) to alter his world in some very major ways.

An example of (a): My character is prone to very risky magical experimentation, including tatooing magical sigils onto himself without researching them first, replacing spell components with scarcely related items, and generally being a magical mad scientist. Because the system isn't mechanically altered, he just uses my magical experimentation as an excuse to have some fun color added to the rather standard D&D-style magic. When he's not feeling creative enough, he'll actually let me take over the narration of my spell's outcomes. Not once has he stepped in to contradict my narration, but I think that is the case either because I'm not going to tournaments or that we've gamed together a lot and he knows the kind of crap I tend to pull or both.

Another example of (a): Since my character is a magic-user, but is adventuring with a very physically violent couple of fighters, he often finds himself in some situations where he's not most adept. Specifically, open combat. At times, he'll ask me to make a to-hit roll. My character can't to-hit to save his life, a scenario which has ocurred all too often. So, we've come to an agreement that if I can reasonably justify an alternative method of problem-solving, I can roll for that skill instead. Sometimes, I wind up using my "running" skill. If I succeed, I get the heck out of the cloud of combat before the nasty orcs can take a swipe at me.

Who establishes the law in the United States of America--the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary?

We know that there's a rule that says only the legislature can create a law; the process is supposed to start with them. In fact, the constitution specifies that the House of Representatives is supposed to write the budget. However, we also know in practice that the executive will often ask the legislature to write a particular law--so common with the budget that the media waits for the President to deliver his budget to the House so that they can put their name on it (or change it) and officially start the process. Why is this so? It's so because the executive has to agree to most of the laws, or they don't become established--but then, the legislature has the power to override the executive, if it's really determined to do so. So maybe the legislature establishes the law, or maybe it's the executive.

But wait! we've overlooked the judiciary. The judiciary has the power to unmake any law that the other two have made--it can simply declare that it's not a law, and there's nothing the other two can do about it. So maybe it establishes the law. Well, maybe not, because there's a caveat--the court is not allowed to say that something is not a law unless someone else challenges it. Still, that's enough power that every once in a while, when something is really difficult or controversial, someone from the legislature or the executive will walk up the street to the courthouse and ask whether a particular proposed law is going to be a problem as it stands. Even more often, someone who objects to a law during the creation process will yell that the judiciary will never stand for it, so there's no point trying to get it passed, and everyone will take another look at how to make it work.

All of this has to do with apportionment of credibility.

But you're right about the power of the referee from this perspective. The referee ultimately has the most credibility to interpret the way the system works; one of the things the system does is apportion credibility. Thus any time there's any doubt about whether a player has credibility to make a statement, it is the referee who decides whether he has that credibility or not, by interpreting whether or not the system gives him that credibility in this situation.

You can obviously undercut this power by giving explicit credibility to the players in the written rules aspect of the system, and by similarly explicitly limiting the referee's credibility in specific ways; but ultimately in all the gray areas someone has to decide whose description of the world is credible, and the way most of our games are designed, that someone is the referee.

You could in theory divide the task of recognizing credibility from the task of describing situation and setting, but I think such specialized applications of credibility would be a hard sell in design terms--most players would find this distinction too complicated and would fall back to giving one player both jobs without really thinking about it.

--M. J. Young

Actually, there's a point here that could be amplified. along the lines of actor vs. author stance.

What does 'having authority for your character' even mean? In the older styles I'm familiar with, the GM is responsible for the world, the NPCs, all of that, and the player is supposed to be an Actor. Player free will is highly prized, but it's reactive free will - meaning that the GM creates the majority of the stuff in the story of characters which another person created.

With a good GM and good communication, this sort of thing can produce wonderful games, of course. But when you move to Author stance for players the nature of player and GM authority seems to undergo a subtle and essential shift.

Probably all of you know this already, but it seemed worth bringing up given some ambiguities in the earlier posts in this discussion.

I agree - I think there probably is a whole scale of GM intervention tolerances from “players have free reigned to describe what’s in the closet” to “only what the GM says goes”.

I think though, in terms of character control, the majority of groups operate on a veto principle. Players have control of character’s actions and intentions (within system boundaries) and the GM reserves the right to veto actions and intentions.

Of course the GM does this at his/her own risk and there is probably a whole range of veto behaviours.

Alan.

Daniel,

No surprise that my counter-example comes from Universalis. By not priviliging any player above another in any way, all players have equal credibility. Or, maybe more properly, each player has a theoretical credibility equal in proportion to the pile of Coins he has in front of him (modified by the player's abiltiy to "get away with things".)

So, there are definitely variations. But even in this case, we see how it's a negotiation. The Coins make this explicit, actually. It's just a question of balance of power. In many a standard game, the GM has "infinite Coins".

MJ, that's a very interesting analysis. I see the theoretical "dispenser of crdibility" as something like the Speaker of the House, actually. Interesting how the term Dictator, means Speaker, isn't it?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: No surprise that my counter-example comes from Universalis. By not priviliging any player above another in any way, all players have equal credibility.

I'd agree with that. It's when things devolve to the social level that the final "final arbiter" is really found.

OTOH, the layering is different, and I think that's what makes the difference in play.

Mike

Sorry to post so late to this thread, but I just came across it. I see your point Mike, and approach it with a different emphasis:

This may really be old hat, but look at it this way: no rules or explicit mechanics are required to populate the shared imaginative space in roleplaying. One's only limitation there is one's own imagination--and the agreement of the others in the group. Everyone comes to the table with equal creative power. What happens comes down to concensus.

Within that concensus, the group of participants chooses different system elements when the group forms their contract of play. They decide which rules and techniques will help them create a shared game experience. What will help grease the wheels, as well as what they find aesthetically pleasing. So, it commonly occurs, that to avoid the conflicts arising from having many people have say, just one person would be elected to shape that vision and be given editorial power. It's understandable but arbitrary.

How I see Universalis is as an example of systems that make the underlying equality of power explicit, and create ways that this power can be retained by all--with specific mechanical techniques designed to allow differences to be stated and resolved without applying to a single person as the arbiter.

If there is a need for an external standard of what is right and true (eg an umpire calling an "out" in baseball), then it may really be necessary to have an empowered arbiter. But if the point is to create a mutually satisfying work, the arbitration can be much more flexible, and equally distributed. It all depends on how well the group can work together to come to concensus, which may be enhanced by choice of mechanics and techniques that make account for this, and hopefully, make it easy and fun.

And finally, Jonathan's point about those who understand or interpret the rules for others having tacit power is well taken. A chosen system becomes a filter for what will be accepted in play, and what will not. An expert gains power to say what's "true", their interpretations affect the filter, and so they may have greater influence on what happens than others do. I see this as a development of the lack of recognition that everyone could wield equal narrative and editorial power: people may feel like they have to grasp for power, ekeing it out of the gm's hold, when all they'd really need to do was choose a different contract of play to be "liberated", and empowered.

And also, everyone comes to a game with different abilities, there will always be imbalances. Rules can help even these out, in fact., including the use of having a sole gm.


Thanks,
Em

Doesn't the scope of GM authority vary based on the chosen rules system? It seems to me that the more heavily codified a system is, the more the GM's authority over player actions and event outcomes is circumscribed. Even in areas of play that are not regulated by the rules (ie. cultures, customs, etc.), I feel much more reluctant to limit player choices in defense of my campaign world if I'm using such a system.

fusangite wrote: Doesn't the scope of GM authority vary based on the chosen rules system?

fusangite wrote: It seems to me that the more heavily codified a system is, the more the GM's authority over player actions and event outcomes is circumscribed.

The GM role...the player role...GM's giving up their position, etc...oi!

How about this.

1. Two people are bargaining. One wants to buy some potatoes at a low price, the other wants to sell them at a high price. They dicker around till they hit a price.

2. Two people are bargaining. One wants to play in a certain way. The other wants to impart a certain scenario. They dicker around on what they agree happens, with their respective bargaining chips - their presences at the play table - backing up their position.

P "I want a beer mug for free/it's just in reach because I said so, to bop on that villains head"
GM "Oookay, I'll wear that"

P "I want to get into the castle for free"
GM "Nope, that'll cost you one orc fight"
P "Oookay, I'll wear that"

P "I cut a rope, so I can swing across and wack a bad guy!"
GM "Nope, it'll take you some time to cut the rope (read: by then the bad guy is gone)"
P "Oh for gods sake!"
GM "Fine, do it then. But with atleast a skill roll first to see if you cut and grab the rope and..."

It sort of clicked with me today. RP is bargaining, to a large degree.

To continue the analogy, are the Rules then the Trading Floor upon which we mutually decide to bargain? SEC guidelines?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: To continue the analogy, are the Rules then the Trading Floor upon which we mutually decide to bargain? SEC guidelines?

Mike

No, I'm talking about actual textual rules. Like, "If you hit, roll 3d6 damage". That sort of thing. These are presumably agreed to before the negotiating begins, and so form a framework for the negotiations to some extent. Where does that fit in the model?

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: No, I'm talking about actual textual rules. Like, "If you hit, roll 3d6 damage". That sort of thing. These are presumably agreed to before the negotiating begins, and so form a framework for the negotiations to some extent. Where does that fit in the model?

Mike

I guess that's what I'm saying. That the chosen system is negotiated first, and then generally colors all later negotiations. As such it seems like a distinct phenopmenon. For example, nowhere else is so much agreed to all at once. Hence why changing systems is so momentus.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I guess that's what I'm saying. That the chosen system is negotiated first, and then generally colors all later negotiations. As such it seems like a distinct phenopmenon. For example, nowhere else is so much agreed to all at once. Hence why changing systems is so momentus.

Mike

I think that's true of market's too, however. One can, for instance, cheat another trader in a market. The social level is always there, too, enforcing all "lower" contracts via the overall social contract.

Mike

There's an angle of this analogy (which is lovely, BTW) which seems to me to be being lost in the detailing of it, and deserves more attention - in fact my intuition says that it might be the core of the whole analogy and its usefulness.

The existence of (a) a rules system, and (b) any specific rule within that framework, as bargaining aids, is a vital one. They provide process, and streamline that process. We could work through every orc encounter, and every swordfight, using from-scratch negotiations, based on our background and shared image of the scene. It would work; indeed, Vincent and Emily's Adventures in Improvised System are one account of an exceedingly functional take on this mode. However, for most of us (I'm in awe and envy of Vincent and Emily's game), the costs in time and immersion-loss of reestablishing the basis of negotiations far outweigh the advantages we might get by always using the most apt economic mode for the transaction at hand.

It's like switching between Capitalism and Communism as one becomes more appropriate to the moment. In fact, I suspect the proper place of "rules system" in this analogy is as an economic theory. The choice to play D&D3E is analogous to the choice to use capitalist theory to govern our trading, instead of communism. (Universalis is definitely communism. And Amber is benevolent fascism, and nevermind that that's not an economic system.) But the point is that this kind of switching is simply not practical in running most countries; you'd need a high level of enlightenment about the function of an economy, in every citizen, before it would be remotely feasible.

Most of the time, what we want is a set of rules which circumvent the process of continually reestablishing the basis of trade. We want that because we value expediency, consistency, and immersion in play over considerations of play. And that's where the rules come in. They provide that framework. A longsword always does 1d8 base damage... that way we no longer need to agree on this "value" in currency, we can start from market value and work on more interesting parts of the negotiations. Who has the credibility to say how much damage a longsword does? Well, we don't need to answer that - by choosing this ruleset, we already apportioned out that cred. Let's skip to the "who has the credibility to say that you hit the orc?" part, and even to the "will you let me use situational modifier X to help me hit that orc?" phase of the negotiations.

A high number of Points of Contact means a very regulated market. Most negotiations will head rapidly toward the detail negotiations (okay, which color of BMW do you want to buy?). Note that this doesn't necessarily mean less negotiation overall, merely a change in focus. The NYSE could be considered "highly regulated" in the sense that it supports basically only one interaction: I give you money, you give me shares. They then cover a thousand negotiations a minute - pull that off with barter, I dare you. Lower the Points of Contact, and you (have to, get to) negotiate from a more fundamental level - are you sure you want a BMW? Are you sure you want to buy a car, and not a bicycle? Are you sure that you want to buy, rather than being awarded it for scholarly merit and displaying respect for your ancestors?

Players who enjoy the negotiating process, who enjoy reapportioning credibility, are more likely to enjoy the latter. The Pool is huge here. Players who don't enjoy reapportioning credibility during the game, who would rather apportion it to begin with via the choice of system and of GM, will be uncomfortable with this environment, and prefer to go play GURPS instead. Which brings it down to a matter of taste, of course, but one which is orthogonal to GNS or other preferences. (Notwithstanding that Nar play may be supported better by more flexible assignments of credibility, and Gam play by more rigid definition - that could just be due to the fact that nobody's come up with a good set of crunchy Premise mechanics yet, where one rolls to generate Ethical Tension Successes by beating the Literary Appropriateness Target Number.)

Can we do more than say that it's a matter of taste? I'm not sure. Certainly, that taste seems to be linked to comfort issues - a nervous new player will have trouble delivering a game-changing MoV, and the gamers who move to high-negotiation-level systems seem to (IMO) generally be ones who've become sophisticated with rigid-credibility systems first. But again, this could just be due to prevalence of the latter.

Perhaps it simply reflects the duality between immersion in the play, and analysis of the play, and says nothing more.

- Eric

That's F'n dead on!! :)

It also explores and details the idea bloody well!

I can't really add much because it said it all.

Well, except this: How many games actually support or encourage in their main books, such negotiations?

I'm asking because I think often, in a lot of peoples individual situations, it takes a few hard knocks before people begin to intuitively include it in their game. Sadly sometimes those knocks mean people leaving the hobby forever.

Particularly when the rules say 'To hit an orc, roll X'. It doesn't really suggest to anyone that you can negotiate so that when your character swings from a chandalier, they or the chandalier will hit...or atleast getting a coolness bonus to hit (for example). The rules just suggest you use the rules, not negotiate. But then we begin to negotiate, with those rules as currency. That's a turn around!

Universalis is definitely communism

Don't think it'd derail much, Ralph - I know Uni only by exposure on these boards. I defer and agree.

Noon - Many systems at least have a 'bonus die' mechanism which provides the starting point for negotiations. Sorcerer, Exalted, etc. More sophisticated levels of negotiation? Umm... I'll think on that one.

Hello,

One candidate for those more sophisticated levels of negotiation is the "moral center" of certain game designs.

In Sorcerer, the GM is the final arbiter of when Humanity checks or Humanity gain rolls are made.

In Dust Devils, the GM determines whether the character's Devil applies as a bonus or as a penalty in a particular conflict.

Since in both cases, these mechanics are absolutely central to the Premise(s) of that particular group ...

And since the GM's "authority" is only to-be-obeyed insofar as the group generally agrees to abide by it, in the long run ...

... then I think that "negotiations" about these judgments are both (a) relatively invisible, because to the observer in the short-term it simply looks as if the GM has the power, period; and (b) extremely personal and extremely social, as they concern heartfelt aspects of play.

Best,
Ron

Wow. I'm more than satisfied with all of this. I almost wish that there was some dissent so that we could challenge it a bit, but maybe it's all actually so obvious now that we've got it out there.

Thanks everyone. I'm not suggesting closing the thread, but I'd only expect it to continue if someone had something really new to add or if someone wants to dissent.

Mike

Here, here.

I did have one thought, though. My copy of MLwM is in the mail (I hope), but based on Actual Play accounts, I might hold it up as an example of what I asserted nobody had yet done - a highly-regulated negotiating environment, with distinctly Narrativist bias.

Am I correct in observing that (except possibly for the Horror Revealed rules) credibility is fairly fixed in MLwM, with only a small set of types of transactions allowed, a fixed order of scenes, and many other constraints on the credibility negotiations? Most of those rules, in fact, seem to be examples of "let's increase the level of market regulation" used to an excellent end. And yet, other than the bits about Gamism creeping in, in the form of players "sequestering" their Connections, the game seems tremendously Narrative in bias.

In fact it feels like one could make a case that although MLwM is highly Narrativist, it even (through good focus regarding Colour and Situation) heavily regulates the core Nar negotiation: "What's our Premise?" For that matter, it even takes out of the negotiating pool the equally basic question to all RPG forms: "How will this game end?" Very, very regulated.

Which could explain why it's doing so well and why it merited inclusion on Costikyan's 300 list... MLwM, per this analysis, could be exploiting a niche previously largely vacant.

[One could make a case for Baron Munchausen and the like in this category, as well... but I think the fit is much weaker.]

- Eric

Hiya,

I think similar fits with My Life with Master include Wuthering Heights, Le Mon Mouri, Otherkind, Extreme Vengeance, and The Dying Earth.

Of these, only the last has received any sort of distributorship and/or convention presence (in the U.S. at least; Wuthering Heights has done so France under its native title, Rene). And the text/presentation of The Dying Earth is a bit too ... how shall I say ... apologetic and a bit stifled in terms of making its essential play-features available to the reader with brevity and enthusiasm.

Given a physical, social, and textual presentation like My Life with Master, in my view, any of these games would be a runaway seller*/player, like MLWM.

Best,
Ron

* My use of "sells" and "sales" differs considerably from the use employed by retailers and most RPG publishers. My use includes profit to the game creator and a high chance of actual play by the purchasers.

Harlequin wrote: Don't think it'd derail much, Ralph - I know Uni only by exposure on these boards. I defer and agree.

Noon - Many systems at least have a 'bonus die' mechanism which provides the starting point for negotiations. Sorcerer, Exalted, etc. More sophisticated levels of negotiation? Umm... I'll think on that one.