RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[FrogReaver]

Because if an entire process is a negotiation, than breaking it down into steps and then picking one out and pointing out how that one step in isolation is not negotiation, that doesn’t really seem to accomplish anything.

The entire process isn’t a negotiation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The entire process isn’t a negotiation.

I get that’s your claim, but I don’t think you’ve made a compelling argument to support it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I get that’s your claim, but I don’t think you’ve made a compelling argument to support it.

That’s okay. 1. I think I have. 2. I don’t think you’ve made any compelling arguments to support the original claim either.

 

[FrogReaver]

Conflict between whom? I didn't say anything about conflict. I talked about competing conceptions of the fiction.

'Conflicting conceptions of the fiction' = 'competing conceptions of the fiction'. IMO at least. But it's not a big deal whatever we label that concept. No matter the name that isn't something that's typically happening in most D&D play.

But in 5e D&D isn't it open to the GM just to say "OK, although the wall is rather high and sheer, you make it up"?

It's more complex than that. I explain it better below.

Or to put it another way, the player has no entitlement to insist on a check, as I understand it.

Correct.

So the GM has to decide how to respond to the player's action declaration

The rules detail process that the DM should follow - at least in 5e D&D. The rules do not tell the DM to decide how to respond to the player's action declaration. What the rules do say:

1. The DM determines if there is uncertainty in the players action.
2. If there's no uncertainty then rule accordingly
3. If there is uncertainty then ask the player to make a skill check and the DM sets the DC based on things like the established fiction so far, his notes, and then that along with randomization coupled with PC ability, and scenario all factor into resolving whether this should ultimately be success or failure.
4. Whether success or failure the DM decides the precise fictional meaning of that and narrates that to player.

So I wouldn't fully agree that the DM has to decide how to respond to the player's action declaration because the most important elements of his response are not his to decide. The DM decides initially whether certain/uncertain, then what the DC should be (if applicable), and finally the precise fiction regarding success/failure. And while that might seem like it gives the DM enough say to be able by fiat to craft the fiction however he desires, there are soo many constraints regarding how he makes each of these decisions that I don't think I've ever seen it rise to the 'say whatever he might desire' kind of level.

- to let it go through "unopposed",

This sounds like my step 1 above. So I agree here.

or to introduce a new possibility for the fiction (in this case, that the character fails to climb, or falls part way up).

5e D&D doesn't require the DM to introduce a new possibility - failure/success is always determined before he has to decide upon the precise fiction related to that failure/success (the last step in the process outlined above). Once he decides and states what happens - it's not a possibility anymore.

 

[pemerton]

@clearstream
@Crimson Longinus
@FrogReaver

I don't ever recall playing or GMing a RPG where a player declares an action for their PC but is disinterested in the success of that action declaration, and has no desire as to what happens next in the fiction beyond rolling dice to see what answer (if any) the mechanics yield.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@clearstream
@Crimson Longinus
@FrogReaver

I don't ever recall playing or GMing a RPG where a player declares an action for their PC but is disinterested in the success of that action declaration, and has no desire as to what happens next in the fiction beyond rolling dice to see what answer (if any) the mechanics yield.

No one is saying that they're disinterested, just that everyone is on board with the chance of failure. You can conceptualise things via this negotiation model if you want, to me trying to get things fit to it starts to seem a bit torturous, and others will not conceptualise things in the same way than you nor see much value in this formulation.

 

[aramis erak]

This is not a rule stated in Revised or Gold, that I'm aware of. And the Adventure Burner/Codex says the opposite (building on the Mouse Guard rule of "no weasels").

It's the option to "walk away." Which is in BWR and BWG.

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream
@Crimson Longinus
@FrogReaver

I don't ever recall playing or GMing a RPG where a player declares an action for their PC but is disinterested in the success of that action declaration, and has no desire as to what happens next in the fiction beyond rolling dice to see what answer (if any) the mechanics yield.

For me any dissent is only around how strongly one reads Baker's thesis.

He wrote that

When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not.

But when I examine the Old School Essentials Dolmenwood actual play (linked is episode 1) I observe that considerable time at the table is spent saying what is true without negotiation. One could exclude such moments from "roleplaying" so that we are "roleplaying" only at moments we are doing a) and b). I think there are numerous obvious problems with that line of reasoning.

Baker also wrote that

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.

Yet mechanics are also crafted to offer satisfying game play, and they very much can exist for that purpose, or for the purpose of modelling the game world. Some mechanics do indeed exist to ease and constrain social negotiation between players at the table: that's the sole and crucial function of those mechanics.

I read Baker as describing something of crucial important to roleplaying, but I do not interpret him to be saying that roleplaying is only doing a) and b). Rather he is calling attention to the centrality and criticality of a) and b). In part, I base that on interpreting his three cases for

What has to happen before the group agrees that, indeed, an orc jumps out of the underbrush?

to imply that he is well aware that roleplaying isn't solely negotiation: it does not occur in every moment of play, but only in some moments of play. His first case - "sometimes not much at all" - exemplifies reliance on pre-agreements (making the "right participant", right). There's no in the moment negotiation in that case. I haven't timed it, but I would guess the majority of moments in OSE Dolmenwood to be play of that ilk.

One reason I mention Dolmenwood is because I feel like the assumption of negotiation in every moment itself serves an important purpose in some modes of play. The pre-agreement is that the fiction is up for negotiation in every moment... an impactful baselining of norms for play. OSE exemplifies another mode, where pre-agreements are more like those delivering Bakers first case, i.e. that there is an undisputed "right" in play. I count this roleplaying no less than the other.

 

[FrogReaver]

@clearstream
@Crimson Longinus
@FrogReaver

I don't ever recall playing or GMing a RPG where a player declares an action for their PC but is disinterested in the success of that action declaration, and has no desire as to what happens next in the fiction beyond rolling dice to see what answer (if any) the mechanics yield.

And I don’t recall a player ever being disinterested in following the mechanics/rules.

Those 2 things can obviously come into conflict, sometimes interest in following the mechanics won’t align with interest in whether you succeed or fail. In those instances one interest will supersede the other and the superseding interest is always following the mechanics over interest in whether you succeed or fail. There’s the nuance that includes both concepts.

Or from another angle, do you think players aren’t most interested in following the rules/mechanics?

 

[clearstream]

I don't ever recall playing or GMing a RPG where a player declares an action for their PC but is disinterested in the success of that action declaration, and has no desire as to what happens next in the fiction beyond rolling dice to see what answer (if any) the mechanics yield.

To respond more directly, I don't see this turning on what player is interested in so much as what process is followed.

Baker has it that participants are "suggesting things that might be true" (emphasis mine). I observe participants in some modes of play asserting what is true. Compelling some assertions is doing what the rules say to do.