A term coined by Ron Edwards for the hypothetical phrase: "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." The term was coined in the second GNS essay, "GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory" (2001). The core of Edwards' argument here is that story is made of the actions of the protagonists, therefore claiming to control one but not the other is senseless.

The damage attributed to the belief of the Impossible Thing is the presence in play of an assumption clash caused by two or more participants having different expectations of the specific roles the GM and Players will have concerning the game's dynamic (will there be villains who "must" escape for the "story"? Will the GM expect the P Cs to participate in a specific prepared adventure? etc.). The participants then blame each other, rather than the game's text or a mutual lack of communication.

All play groups have some solution, whether implicit or explicit, to the paradox described by the Impossible Thing Before Breakfast - they must, or play couldn't proceed. MJ Young has identified four basic readings of (or solutions to) the Impossible Thing, summarized in the Theory 101 link below.

References:

• GNS and Other Matters of Role-playing Theory, Chapter Five (Dec 2001)
• Is the "Great Impossible Thing" truly impossible? (The Forge, Mar 2003)
• The Impossible Things: textual examples (The Forge, Apr 2003)
• The Impossible Thing (The Forge, Apr 2003)
• Pre-Breakfast Possibilities (The Forge, Apr 2003)
• Narrativism: Story Now (Feb 2004)
• A Brief History of Fashion in RPG Design (Feb 2004)
• The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (The Forge, Dec 2004)
• Theory 101: The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast (Places to Go, People to Be, Jun 2005)