That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[S'mon]

Yes, they do, in that they cannot make a ruling unless invoked by the parties to begin with. Parties that have already started a negotiation, failed to reach a conclusion, and turned to arbitration to help settle the negotiation.

Like GMing, the negotiation has ended before the arbitration begins.

Anyway thanks to Pemerton I finaly know the source of the bee in your bonnet!

 

[Lanefan]

If the rules clearly prescribe everything, then there is no need for personal authority.

The rules can prescribe everything as clearly as they want but somebody has to - ideally in a fair and neutral manner - enforce them; because if rules are not enforced somehow then they serve no purpose and might as well not exist. That's where the authority comes in: the authority of the referee.

Authority only serves where the rules themselves do not. Ergo, the exertion of authority is in filling in for the rules.

Authority doesn't exist separate from the rules, it exists as an extension of the existence of the rules. No rules, no authority.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks for the source! I initially thought 'negotiation' was being used here as a term of art, and was flummoxed by the insistence it was being used per the dictionary definition.

Anyway thanks to Pemerton I finaly know the source of the bee in your bonnet!

I'm always happy to be a source of things!

But did I succeed in laying the controversy to rest?

 

[pemerton]

Authority doesn't exist separate from the rules, it exists as an extension of the existence of the rules. No rules, no authority.

This isn't true either. There can be authority without rules: the standard example in the literature is the ordinary but charismatic person who, through dint of personality and quick wits, is able to take control of an evacuation or similar emergency/rescue situation - coordinating and directing the collective effort - although there is no rule for the appointment of such a person, nor any rule that tells him/her what to do.

A less-discussed and perhaps less-admirable version is also well known to classroom teachers - the "leader" of the class who determines whether the rest of the class cooperate or not by dint of his/her own decision as to what the class shall do today.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One more step for the win. The following:

Ovinomancer: Strawman! -> that nonsense above.
pemerton: merely continue to include in next post -> elucidation.

Further discussion of this event can happen outside this thread, but enough here.

Goodness, me, yessir. Now that you've chosen to relitigate a dropped issue, called my posts nonesense, declared yourself winner, and then (with veiled moderation threats) declared the topic closed, how could anyone refute such rhetorical mastery? I am overawed.

 

[Campbell]

The rules can prescribe everything as clearly as they want but somebody has to - ideally in a fair and neutral manner - enforce them; because if rules are not enforced somehow then they serve no purpose and might as well not exist. That's where the authority comes in: the authority of the referee.

Authority doesn't exist separate from the rules, it exists as an extension of the existence of the rules. No rules, no authority.

Have you ever played pickup basketball, been part of a poker night, or played board games with friends? The idea that we need an authority figure to enforce the rules is silly. We engage in activities all the time where we all jointly hold each other accountable.

Not saying that having a referee is a bad thing, but the idea that we all descend into chaos without one is silly.

 

[pemerton]

A variation on @Campbell's recent post:

Rules can be govern an activity in the absence of a referee. This can be symmetrical, by way of mutual compliance: a friendly game of chess or bridge is like this. Or it can be asymmetrical, where one participant in the activity is also put in charge of rules-enforcement. Playing Monopoly or a similar game with a banker who is also a player is like this.

Although I often refer to myself as a "referee" in the context of GMing - because I learned my nomenclature from late 70s rulebooks, and only came across the term Gamemaster (modelled on Dungeon Master, I guess?) later on - I don't know of any approach to RPGing where the GM actually plays the refereeing role that is part of (eg) organised sports or serious competition in chess and other games.

The GM-player relationship has just as much in common with the asymmetry among participants exemplified by the banker in Monopoly. There can be good reasons to have such a role in the game because there are a number of things in RPGing where asymmetry can help achieve the goals of play. These include, as fairly well-known candidates: scene-framing; revealing hidden background fiction; declaring actions for non-player controlled characters; adjudicating the fiction and keeping action declarations within genre constraints; narrating consequences for failed checks; etc.

But none of these has anything to do with the idea that a referee is necessary to enforce the rules! That's a false claim that is also a content-independent claim (ie it is supposed to be true of all rules regardless of their content). Whereas the reasons why RPGing can benefit from having a GM are all very content-specific, having to do with particular content-dependent reasons that can arise in RPGing for having a particular participant in the game be the one who establishes what happens next in the shared fiction.

Appreciating this is pretty fundamental to understanding what is possible and/or desirable in RPGing, I think.

 

[Umbran]

Nor am I sure how familiar you are with the pretty extensive literature on rules, and on authority, and on the rule of law.

Taking this out of order. As I just told someone else - if a specific literature reading list is required to be part of a conversation, a public messageboard is not the place for that conversation.

Rule of law is what we apply to bad actors. The analogy for games would be dealing with cheaters, which I am pretty sure isn't the realm in question here.

I think this is overly simplistic. I'm not sure what you have in mind in making your claim, nor quite what you mean by "personal authority" (are you including judges in that category, or only tyrants?).

This is a messageboard about games. Discussion of real-world societal governance is not only off topic, but generally frowned upon by the rules - says a person with authority to administer those rules

I refer to "personal authority" to distinguish that from the agreed upon authority of the rules themselves. If you are playing chess, reminding the other player that their bishop moves on the diagonal is not exerting personal authority, they are referring to the authority of the agreed rules. I reject Lanefan's assertion that people require authoritative enforcement to play a game. Humans are perfectly capable of staying within rules if they want to.

I would normally use chess or checkers to make this argument, but I foresee a reductive linguistic approach to a counter, so let us consider.... mancala. A game with shared pieces and play space.

Assume players who know the rules and are willing to stay within those rules. The rules denote all legal moves of all participants in the game, and the only authority needed in the game is that of those rules to dictate play.

This, as contrasted with D&D, in which the book of rules is very clear that the rules are not complete, and should not be considered prescriptive of all moves that should be considered "legal" in the game. D&D, and RPGs in general, required players to be given various forms of authority to decide on the legality and sometimes resolution of declarations not in the prescription.

 

[pemerton]

@Umbran, I've seen you post to correct errors other posters have made about mathematics or physics.

You are making basic errors in your account of rules, authority, and the rule of law. For instance, I don't know of any thinker about the rule of law who thinks it is "what we apply to bad actors". To give one counterexample: I am not a bad actor; nevertheless I am bound by the principles of natural justice when I make decisions as an administrator of educational programs. This is a manifestation of the rule of law.

But as I already said, I don't see any real profit in pursuing this discussion.

 

[prabe]

The GM-player relationship has just as much in common with the asymmetry among participants exemplified by the banker in Monopoly. There can be good reasons to have such a role in the game because there are a number of things in RPGing where asymmetry can help achieve the goals of play. These include, as fairly well-known candidates: scene-framing; revealing hidden background fiction; declaring actions for non-player controlled characters; adjudicating the fiction and keeping action declarations within genre constraints; narrating consequences for failed checks; etc.

But none of these has anything to do with the idea that a referee is necessary to enforce the rules! That's a false claim that is also a content-independent claim (ie it is supposed to be true of all rules regardless of their content). Whereas the reasons why RPGing can benefit from having a GM are all very content-specific, having to do with particular content-dependent reasons that can arise in RPGing for having a particular participant in the game be the one who establishes what happens next in the shared fiction.

I don't disagree with your post, but was leaving out the idea of GM as in charge of the rules an intentional omission? It's not part of every TRPG, but it's pretty explicit at least in the versions of D&D that I'm most familiar with that the GM is the last word on the rules--while still in principle being subject to them, which seems at least a little conflicty (but that's probably best left as a different discussion). That at least seems to be a difference in authority that's greater than the difference in (to use your example) Monopoly between the Banker and the other players.