I have been wanting to think that for some time, but want able to. Thanks, Rob, it's much clearer now ☺

I have been wanting to think that for some time, but want able to. Thanks, Rob, it's much clearer now ☺

Originally shared by Rob Donoghue

Unrelated conversations are colliding in my brain

I am fascinated by decentralized models of authority, especially self-organization.  Lots of reasons for this, but one is specific to RPGS.

It seems to me  That is. the act of creation puts power/authority in the designers hands, but then the designer can either assert or relinquish that authority once the game is in a player's hands. Neither is necessarily the correct approach, but depending upon which is chosen, there are more and less responsible ways to go about it.  

If the creator wishes to assert authority, then the responsibility is to use it in a way that benefits the player (with strong, support, clarity, direction, material and so on).

If the creator wishes to relinquish authority, then the responsibility is to provide the tools or guidance to enable whoever picks up the book (GM or player) to effectively claim, and in turn share, that authority themselves (licenses, guidelines for use). 

Obviously, the creator is not obliged to do either of these things. You can always just throw the work out there and see what happens to say nothing of the fact that players have no obligation to obey the creator's intent).   This is a rough sketch, not a comprehensive model. 

But within this sketch, I have a strong personal preference for the act of releasing a game serving as a concession of authority.   I fully acknowledge that the tools for supporting that are not as mature or robust as they are for asserting authority, which complicates that.  But I think that's just a limitation of time and learning, and that is why decentralized models of authority in other spheres intrigue me.