RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Lanefan]

There are no established mechanics, in AD&D, for resolving the action declaration I seal the doors, unleash my Decanter of Endless Water, and float up to the same level as the eyes in the statute so that I can pry them out.

Resolving this action declaration is not a logical operation of the sort involved in resolving the move of a bishop in chess.

I agree with the first paragraph: the mechanics for sorting that one out aren't written down.

I disagree with the second, however, in that a 1e DM could still approach this resolution in a logical (if fairly granular) manner.

Were someone to declare this in my game, after congratulating the player's creativity I'd handle it more or less thusly (assuming none of these parameters are already known):

1. I'd ask what if anything you were specifically doing in order to seal the doors other than simply closing them.
2. I'd check the map-and-key to see if it tells me about any other entrances, possible drains, etc. the PCs haven't yet noticed
3. I'd have the player roll for success on sealing the door, on a sliding scale where 1 means it's still a sieve and 20 means a perfect seal.
3a. If there's any unknown exits I'd quietly roll for the water-tightness of each
4. I'd calculate the approximate volume of the room up to the height of the statue's eyes
5. I'd work out roughly how long it would take your Decanter to fill said volume with water, assuming no leakage out of the room, then adjust for leakage if any
6. Somewhere along here, if not sooner, I'd ask if your character can swim; and what it's doing with any heavy and-or water-sensitive gear it might be carrying (and if necessary deal with any consequences of said gear getting soaked)
7. As the room fills I'd quietly roll a saving throw for the doors (particularly if they open outwards!) to see if they can hold back the pressure
8. Assuming all has gone well so far, we'd deal with the actual extraction of the jewels
9. Now that you've sealed yourself in and buried the door under feet of water, I'd inquire as to how you intend to escape this chamber.

 

[Aldarc]

A.k.a. binding arbitration, which also doesn't fall under "negotiation" as there's no opportunity for back-and-forth once the positions are set between which the arbitrator (in this case, the rule/mechanic) must choose.

Except it does actually count as negotiation. Binding arbitration may be used, for example, either when (a) two parties are in dispute in their negotiations and decide to consult a third party or (b) the terms and service of the negotiation require third party arbitration. Back and forth is still possible in these scenarios. This is not to mention how in the case of rules/mechanics may require or open further negotiation in the form of interpreting the results.

 

[pemerton]

@Lanefan

I am not using "logical" in the sense of sensible or rational or predictable if you know someone's inclinations.

I am using it in the sense in which chess and backgammon can be characterised as unfolding in a logical or (if one prefers) mathematical space (which the board helps represent, much as a diagram can help represent a geometrical state of affairs); whereas (say) basketball unfolds in a physical space; and a RPG unfolds in an imaginary space.

That flow from you to the other particpants runs through the GM, however, in that one of the roles of the the GM is to represent the resolution mechanics; and often those mechanics are going to have something to say about what you-as-player want to do to the shared fiction.

Here, when you say you'll climb the statue and pry out those sweet jewel eyes the game mechanics are probably going to want a brief chat about the climb and almost certainly will have something to say about prying out the jewels. Thus, the imagination flow is (potentially) interrupted.

Your second paragraph is already positing that the RPG in question has a certain sort of rule triggered by a certain sort of action declaration.

Whether this is true depends on the game and the table's conventions (as per Baker's remarks about ownership8 and also *credibility).

For instance, in the first ever Rolemaster session that I GMed, the PCs all found themselves on the docks of Greyhawk City at the same time, and an aggressive tout bundled them off to the same inn. As that was happening, one of the PCs introduced himself to the others, the player doing that in character. This changed the shared imaginary space, and as a result changed the fictional position of the PCs (eg the player's PC sheet had one name on it, but the player used another name to introduce himself - the first in a long line of disguises and pseudonyms used by this PC, who also frequently went about under Change Self-type spells). It did not go through the GM, and did not depend upon the GM "consenting" to it or "approving" it as a declared action. In the rules of RM, as operationalised at our table, a player has a very high degree of ownership over their own character, and very high credibility vis-a-vis what it is that their PC says.

 

[Lanefan]

Your second paragraph is already positing that the RPG in question has a certain sort of rule triggered by a certain sort of action declaration.

Whether this is true depends on the game and the table's conventions (as per Baker's remarks about ownership8 and also *credibility).

For instance, in the first ever Rolemaster session that I GMed, the PCs all found themselves on the docks of Greyhawk City at the same time, and an aggressive tout bundled them off to the same inn. As that was happening, one of the PCs introduced himself to the others, the player doing that in character. This changed the shared imaginary space, and as a result changed the fictional position of the PCs (eg the player's PC sheet had one name on it, but the player used another name to introduce himself - the first in a long line of disguises and pseudonyms used by this PC, who also frequently went about under Change Self-type spells). It did not go through the GM, and did not depend upon the GM "consenting" to it or "approving" it as a declared action. In the rules of RM, as operationalised at our table, a player has a very high degree of ownership over their own character, and very high credibility vis-a-vis what it is that their PC says.

Your example here and the one earlier (climbing statue to get jewels) are quite different, in that this one completely revolves around the player's characterisation of the character through how it relates to/interacts with other characters (which rarely if ever invokes game mechanics but might in some cases violate a previously-agreed-on social contract) while the prior one revolves around the character attempting to do something within/to the setting (which when there's uncertainty as to outcome, as is the case there, often invokes some sort of game mechanic as a resolver).

But yes, this example is certainly one case where the information - intentionally inaccurate though it may be! - flows straight from the player to all involved.

 

[pemerton]

Your example here and the one earlier (climbing statue to get jewels) are quite different, in that this one completely revolves around the player's characterisation of the character through how it relates to/interacts with other characters (which rarely if ever invokes game mechanics but might in some cases violate a previously-agreed-on social contract) while the prior one revolves around the character attempting to do something within/to the setting (which when there's uncertainty as to outcome, as is the case there, often invokes some sort of game mechanic as a resolver).

As I posted, reiterating a point that Baker makes, different elements of the fiction are "owned" by different participants, which is a consideration that is relevant to easing/constraining the process of establishing how the shared fiction unfolds.

this example is certainly one case where the information - intentionally inaccurate though it may be! - flows straight from the player to all involved.

Suppose a PC owns a house, and the player declares I climb up my ladder to check and clean the gutters. Does this require a check? The answer will be idiosyncratic across different tables.

 

[clearstream]

Use of established mechanics is a means/tool of negotiation, specifically intended to ease and streamline the overall process of negotiation, as has been explained and described and elaborated on multiple times. It is not negotiation itself, any more than articulating a 'p' or an 's', or even a whole word, is speaking a declarative sentence in English.

Also there is no "the game state", there are several game states—one per participant—and they must be continually checked to ensure they are in sync. And that is done through an ongoing process—however brief each exchange, using one of the means/tools that have been explained and described and elaborated on multiple times—of negotiation.

Edit: Fixed a typo, added a clarification.

(Emphasis mine.) I have been thinking about this prompted by @pemerton's #555 which I found to be a good post.

I'd like to turn folks' minds to the idea that the fictional component of TTRPG game states are never fully in sync. Further, they are each incomplete sketches. Each participant maintains an incomplete sketch of the fictional state that corresponds on a few key details to others.

An example is to read a transcript of play such as Dolmenwood ep 03 night and morning at the ruins of an abbey. At one point player characters are "loudly complaining about the night's sleep". But no one says what those words in fact are. That's a detail that won't get filled in. It's entirely possible in this case that one player pictures blowing on their hands and grumbling about the cold, a second imagines instead that they're stretching their back ands commenting on the stony ground, while a third has nothing particular in mind for that at all. We're more than capable of unravelling details as needed, but in this case never discover what "complaining" truly amounted to.

Later the same morning characters encounter someone "not blocking the entrance and standing outside the entrance with a spear sort of raised but shaking a little bit is a woman who was dressed head to toe in animal skins basically um expertly uh you know whatever uh skinned um and um she has uh long braids that kind of come out of this fur cap that she's wearing um like you know long dread sort of thing that kind of fall down her hair and she has like and she's baring her teeth and she's like like really scared she's got a big gap right in the middle long dirty brown locks and she's basically filthy she's shivering a little bit in the cold and she's got her spear out um at the ready and she's like peering at you guys she's like who who goes there don't come any closer". How tall is this woman? What colour are her eyes? What's her apparent age? When she speaks, what's the tone and pitch of her voice? Such details are left open for each participant to have a different - or no - draft of in their individually-maintained fictional state.

What I observe is that fictional states are "lazily" maintained. Taking advantage of the wonderful human propensity for efficient cognition. In play, the states don't need to be "continually checked to ensure they are in sync." Above, it means the GM can just assert some world facts, and players lazily add those non-contingently to what they each privately picture. Whether or not others agree with my characterisation of additions being often-enough non-contingent, I feel that the following observations are robust

1. Each participant maintains a private draft of the fictional state
2. Each participant's draft of the fiction is sketchy and incomplete
3. Such sketchy and incomplete private drafts of the fiction diverge
4. Other than as to a) a handful of anchoring fictional details, and b) details that are instantiated in system parameters

 

[clearstream]

For instance, in the first ever Rolemaster session that I GMed, the PCs all found themselves on the docks of Greyhawk City at the same time, and an aggressive tout bundled them off to the same inn. As that was happening, one of the PCs introduced himself to the others, the player doing that in character. This changed the shared imaginary space, and as a result changed the fictional position of the PCs (eg the player's PC sheet had one name on it, but the player used another name to introduce himself - the first in a long line of disguises and pseudonyms used by this PC, who also frequently went about under Change Self-type spells). It did not go through the GM, and did not depend upon the GM "consenting" to it or "approving" it as a declared action. In the rules of RM, as operationalised at our table, a player has a very high degree of ownership over their own character, and very high credibility vis-a-vis what it is that their PC says.

I have been thinking of player control over their character - particularly in "neo-trad" modes of play - as providing good examples of non-contingent additions to fiction.

 

[clearstream]

I clarify things in a negotiation to see if I understand things correctly and to reassure myself that the opposite party and I see things eye to eye. Often negotiation involves establishing common ground through discussion without any sense of hostility.

100% agree that negotiation need not involve hostility. And that as @Thomas Shey pointed out "not all negotiations are intrinsically selfish".

EDIT What matters to me about negotiation is the implication of contingency. When "negotiation" is used, it can turn out to imply that assertion is impossible. Which goes against observation.

 

[Lanefan]

Suppose a PC owns a house, and the player declares I climb up my ladder to check and clean the gutters. Does this require a check? The answer will be idiosyncratic across different tables.

Doesn't matter. Even if a check isn't required or even considered, e.g. for something as trivial as walking across a room, that action declaration has still implicitly gone through the GM's approval process as backed up by the game mechanics.

Contrast this with me saying in character to the rest of the party: "Ya know, we just did that mission for Baron Overboard and he stiffed us on the reward he promised. What say we break into his castle and take what should be ours anyway?". There's no GM-approval process here, implicit or otherwise, that she can use to stop me from saying this in the moment; nor are there any game mechanics that prevent it. (potential in-game downstream consequences of my saying this are another thing entirely, and moot to the point I'm trying to make)

The GM also has no approval process over peaceful interactions between PCs. If, in character, I and another PC agree to trade my longsword for his mace so we can each try out the other's weapon for a few combats (let's assume we're each proficient in both weapons), neither the GM nor the mechanics can step in and prevent this.

I suspect we're closer to agreement on this than might at first be apparent.

 

[clearstream]

@pemerton I wondered if you take it that assertion is impossible in TTRPG? So that no participant can ever have sufficiently high-ownership (say of their character) that they can make additions to the fiction without that being contingent.