NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8648724" data-attributes="member: 70468">While searching around for various takes on the safe problem (as it were), I stumbled across an <a href="http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=20791.msg216100#msg216100" target="_blank">interesting discussion</a> by Eddwards on authority. I see it has an <a href="https://big-model.info/wiki/Authority" target="_blank">entry</a> on the big model wiki, but I can’t find much other discussion about it. However, I feel like it really cuts to the heart of this discussion.In the thread, Edwards observes that there are four types of authority. Additionally, while it is commonly assumed that the four types of authority are related, Edwards postulates that they are separate.So how is this useful? I think the argument for conflict resolution is assuming that players have content authority. When they roll, the conflict is over whether they obtain the incriminating documents not whether they complete the task of opening the safe. Obviously, not everyone agrees with this position. It feels odd or incorrect that players could just will a safe full of documents into existence regardless of what the GM has prepared.The question that has been bothering me on this topic is how to reconcile a setting-centric approach with conflict resolution, and the answer is that content authority must remain with the GM. However, in order to retain protagonism for the PCs, the players must have plot authority and situational authority. They must be able to pursue their goal of obtaining the evidence, and when it comes time for the conflict, the GM must provide appropriate content. If that means a safe full of documents, then it will consist of the safe full of documents. If it’s something else, then framing a scene with an empty safe would be stepping on the players’ authority. The GM doesn’t get to fake them out. The GM has to provide the appropriate content from their prep.This is one of the things that has given me trouble with wanting to embrace conflict resolution while still preserving the space for setting and prep in my homebrew systems. The answer seems to be that I can have those things, but I don’t get to say what happens. I have to rely on the players for that (and reconciling event rolls, but I would not take that as plot authority on my — the referee’s part). At least, that’s the theory anyway. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😅" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f605.png" title="Grinning face with sweat    :sweat_smile:" data-shortname=":sweat_smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Applying this idea to consequence resolution, I think most of the authority would be retained by the GM. While I think there is some taking into consideration what the players want, it doesn’t appear they have the ability to establish situations or actually direct the plot. The GM needs to “read the tea leaves” and make those things happen.(I could also be in fact totally wrong about this, but one of the things I want to be able to do is take a module with a situation, ignore whatever plot it has if any, and play to see what happens. We’ve done that with several adventures from OSE, and I think it’s a strength of them. Having words and a framework for reasoning about who gets to say what would be really helpful.)</blockquote>

Verification