The Forge Archives

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.

Quote from: MarcoAs 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).

So, you're saying that these things are negotiated more or less constantly? I think I agree. That just adds another layer of complexity, then, doesn't it? Or does it simplify things by simply saying "everything's negotiated"?

I think that Justin is saying the same things, but pointing out where dysfunction can creep into the model and other notes.

Mike

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

Quote from: Mike HolmesNo surprise that my counter-example comes from Universalis. By not priviliging any player above another in any way, all players have equal credibility.

Actually, I don't think this is quite the case.  Even in systems like Universalis, Pantheon, or Ever-After/Facedance, there is still likely to be a dispenser of credibility.  This person is not the GM but the person who understands the rules the best or, alternately, the person who can convince the rest of the group that they understand what the rules REALLY say.  This person can also exist in games with GMs, usually under the guise of the Rules-Lawyer, someone who challanges the GM's credibility by calling on the credibility of the rules (which theoretically, the GM is also governed by, depending on your social contract).

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.

Quote from: fusangiteDoesn't the scope of GM authority vary based on the chosen rules system?

By the way, welcome to the Forge.

Yes, the scope of GM credibility depends on the system, and the system in large part on the written rules; but the question isn't what you suggest, viz.,

Quote from: fusangiteIt 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.

I've played some wargames which are extremely codified in which there is no referee at all; I've played some RPGs which were nigh on freeform, but the referee was the only one at the table who could say what actually happened.

I should mention that "credibility" means the right to define what happens in the shared imagined space. In most games, players have primary credibility for what their characters do, and referees have primary credibility for everything else--what effects they have, what they find, what they accomplish, what works or doesn't work. That line moves significantly, though--there are games in which nothing a player says his character does becomes "real" in the game world until the referee (at least tacitly) approves it, and other games in which players can override referee decisions, such as with metagame currencies, to change what happens in that world.

"Authority" is less commonly used around here; however, it has been said that written rules have "authority" in that anyone can appeal to them to attempt to settle a dispute, but it still requires someone at the table with "credibility" to determine what the cited rules mean and whether or how they apply to the current situation--usually the referee.

(Jargon is problematic, but it does streamline discussions once you know the usages.)

So the question of credibility is ultimately determined by "system" (which means the methodology by which events within the shared imagined space are determined), which is strongly influenced by written rules but at the same time interpreted by someone with the credibility to do so--the entire means of supporting that shared imaginary space is circular, giving credibility to the person who decides who has credibility to make that decision. Yet it works.

--M. J. Young

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.