RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Crimson Longinus]

Obviously I would use the term "negotiation" to describe this, but that is because I think that "discussion" is a weak to meaningless term to describe what is happening. My problem with the language of "disucssion" is that it implies something a bit more casual, rudderless or directionless, and less process-oriented.

For example, "My friends and I discussed roleplaying games" or "We had a discussion about the fiction." What about it? What was the nature of the discussion? What was the purpose of the discussion? Was anything resolved? It's fairly open-ended and vague. It sounds like you are just talking about something without any regard for purpose or process.

"Negotiated the fiction" gives a clearer, IMHO, idea of what the discussion is about or the stakes of the discussion. Even if I am clarifying the facts, it's about establishing the common fiction between participants. Negotiation here implies, IMO, a conscientious movement towards consensus regarding the ficiton, resolving it among everyone, and then repeating the process as needed.

I understand that the term "negotiation" doesn't work for you. Your mileage varies. It works for me. On the other hand, "discussion" feels like a vague, milquetoast word to describe what's transpiring when you have a "discussion that is just about clarifying the facts." It doesn't work for me. It tells an incomplete picture.

To me negotiation implies a level of disagreement I feel generally is not present. But this is just boring semantics and I don't care that much what word is used as long as we all understand what is meant.

 

[Aldarc]

To me negotiation implies a level of disagreement I feel generally is not present. But this is just boring semantics and I don't care that much what word is used as long as we all understand what is meant.

Most negotiations are not hostile hostage negotiations. Most business negotiations don't necessarily involve disagreements. They are fairly quick, painless, and sometimes more procedural or bureaucratic than anything else. Sometimes it's about trying to find if there are any potential places of disagreement between parties before resolving their matter of business.

But as you say, as long as we all understand what is meant here, I guess our little negotiation is over.

Edit: forgot a critical "not" in the first sentence.

 

[clearstream]

Obviously I would use the term "negotiation" to describe this, but that is because I think that "discussion" is a weak to meaningless term to describe what is happening. My problem with the language of "disucssion" is that it implies something a bit more casual, rudderless or directionless, and less process-oriented.

For example, "My friends and I discussed roleplaying games" or "We had a discussion about the fiction." What about it? What was the nature of the discussion? What was the purpose of the discussion? Was anything resolved? It's fairly open-ended and vague. It sounds like you are just talking about something without any regard for purpose or process.

"Negotiated the fiction" gives a clearer, IMHO, idea of what the discussion is about or the stakes of the discussion. Even if I am clarifying the facts, it's about establishing the common fiction between participants. Negotiation here implies, IMO, a conscientious movement towards consensus regarding the ficiton, resolving it among everyone, and then repeating the process as needed.

I understand that the term "negotiation" doesn't work for you. Your mileage varies. It works for me. On the other hand, "discussion" feels like a vague, milquetoast word to describe what's transpiring when you have a "discussion that is just about clarifying the facts." It doesn't work for me. It tells an incomplete picture.

Picturing discussion

Player 1: I want to get to the top of that wall, quietly​

GM: It's sheer and high enough to hurt if you fall, plus as you know there are guards: make a Dexterity (Athletics) check DC 12​

Player 1: rolls d20... 9+5... 14​

GM: No problem then, you're at the top looking into the compound...​

Avoiding digression into the type of resolution, in order to focus on "discussion" versus "negotiation", I see the agreement here as sustained and implicit. It doesn't feel like what I would call "negotiation." As jargon, the word has the plus that it drives attention to the ongoing possibility of disagreement, as well as framing additions to the ongoing narrative in a thought-provoking light. And it has the negative that it introduces unproductive semantic distractions.

I prefer a more complicated framing that goes something like

1. Over-arching agreements that are able to sustain implicit ongoing agreements: these can be explicit, such as principles and agenda in game texts, evolving, such as when a group over time encounters and resolves cases in play, or cultural, such as when I bring background expectations from my form of life
2. Per-participant drafts of the shared narrative
3. Submissions to the shared narrative, based on such drafts
4. Moment-to-moment potential for negotiation, such as when per-participant drafts contain omissions or conflicting expectations, or when game mechanics compel it

As I've said a couple of times in varying ways above, the picture is then that "negotiation is implicit in all RPG, and explicit at frequencies that differ by RPG."

 

[clearstream]

Most negotiations are hostile hostage negotiations. Most business negotiations don't necessarily involve disagreements. They are fairly quick, painless, and sometimes more procedural or bureaucratic than anything else. Sometimes it's about trying to find if there are any potential places of disagreement between parties before resolving their matter of business.

The business example for me is a good one. When I sign an HoA I expect that we're agreed on the major points and I do not expect to have to re-agree those points, although it is still possible. Once we've executed the contract I do not expect to re-negotiate the agreements we've contracted to, outside exceptional circumstances. To an extent, the point of the negotiation up front is to obviate negotiation in the moment!

A good contract helps us adhere to fair and strategic criteria for what = good, rather than rolling decision-to-decision and losing sight of those things in the heat of the moment. Of course, scenarios can come up that we didn't anticipate and we sometimes end up re-negotiating because of them, and sometimes a contract will contain explicit triggers for re-negotiation.

 

[Aldarc]

Also notice in your example, @clearstream, that the player is also not discussing to clarify the fiction here either, though the GM arguably does. The GM calls for the roll, and the player rolls.

That said, in your hypothetical examples, I see the negotiation transpiring when the PC declares their intent and the GM frames the fiction and set the DC. This is to say, step 1 in the negotiation here is when the player declares their intent in the fiction. Then in step 2 of the process, the GM is offering their understanding of the fiction to the player along with caveats or potential consequences. This is the point where the player and GM would potentially further negotiate their understanding of the fiction: i.e., before the roll. Maybe there would be further discussion or arbitration about the climbing surface, the guards, or the consequences of falling.

The fact that they don't implies to me that the player accepts the GM's framing of the fiction or they don't see any potential rough spots that may need to be hammered out between them. So step 3, an agreement is reached. The negotiation resolved and concluded. The player picks up the dice and rolls. That would be the point where the player signs the dotted line of the contract.

 

[clearstream]

Also notice in your example, @clearstream, that the player is also not discussing to clarify the fiction here either, though the GM arguably does. The GM calls for the roll, and the player rolls.

That said, in your hypothetical examples, I see the negotiation transpiring when the PC declares their intent and the GM frames the fiction and set the DC. This is to say, step 1 in the negotiation here is when the player declares their intent in the fiction. Then in step 2 of the process, the GM is offering their understanding of the fiction to the player along with caveats or potential consequences. This is the point where the player and GM would potentially further negotiate their understanding of the fiction: i.e., before the roll. Maybe there would be further discussion or arbitration about the climbing surface, the guards, or the consequences of falling.

The fact that they don't implies to me that the player accepts the GM's framing of the fiction or they don't see any potential rough spots that may need to be hammered out between them. So step 3, an agreement is reached. The negotiation resolved and concluded. The player picks up the dice and rolls. That would be the point where the player signs the dotted line of the contract.

Keeping that example in mind, and introducing another case that may be related

1. Players 1 and 2 are partway through a game of Chess
2. P1 castles their King to Queen-side, passing through a check given by P2s Bishop (akin to declaring their intent)
3. P2 sees the proposed move and points out that it isn't legal to castle through check (offers their understanding of the game)
4. This is the point where the players negotiate their understanding of the rules, it turns out that P1 wasn't aware of that constraint (one can readily conjure other examples where P1 has it right, and P2 makes a mistaken challenge to the move)
5. P1 concedes the point and retracts their move (retracting their proposal and presumably making a different one)

In each moment of Chess, there is an implicit test of agreement that proposed moves accord with the rules: in a real sense, moves only count once they are accepted by both players. In the example above, the players could have agreed to play "easy-castling-Chess" in which castling through check is perfectly allowed. A clear example of an up-front agreement adjusting what will be accepted in each moment.

Let's say we're not particularly concerned for the semantics, and call the process "wibbling". By my lights, "wibbling" can happen up-front, and that which has been wibbled up-front is normally not wibbled in the moment, even though it implicitly can be wibbled for all kinds of reasons. I don't say it is wibbled unless it is in fact wibbled, drawing a distinction between potential and actuality.

Postscript: for a designer, having in mind this framework for wibbling is useful. They can decide i) what wibbling to mandate up front, ii) what wibbling to drive or expect in the moment, iii) who holds what rights in wibbling, such as who settles deadlocks... and so on. But isn't it right to say that for players, overt wibbling in the moment is only a good thing when that is the distinctive gameplay sought?

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m not “making this personal”. I’m talking about the contents of your posts.

They are frequently about the language used and not the actual content. In this reply, you don’t address any of the points of my last post, but instead attempt to tone police and accuse me of making this personal. I’m not… I’m trying to actually discuss something. You seem to be avoiding discussion and attempting to frame this in such a way that I’m in the wrong.

I can’t make you respond to the content, but I’ll call it out when you don’t do so.

To get back to the topic… everything you’ve described about how play works in D&D sounds like negotiation. Multiple participants finding agreement. It’s involved in just about any group activity, and RPGs are chock full of it.

Again. Please stop making this personal. You are welcome to report/block/ignore me but I’m drawing the line at making it personal.

For what it’s worth. I’m happy to discuss points as soon as the personal attacks stop.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I believe we previously found that the divide on this question was to some extent semantic. "Negotiation" - discussion aimed at reaching an agreement - sounds like something active. It implies a possible suspension and resumption of agreement, rather than a continuation of ongoing agreement. Consider this -

Jo and Addy negotiate on Monday about who will empty the dustbin for the rest of the week. They agree to take turns, starting with Jo. On Tuesday, they do not "negotiate" who will empty the dustbin, although surely Jo's ongoing agreement is in play in their doing so.​

​

Versus​

​

Jo and Addy negotiate on Monday about who will empty the dustbin for the rest of the week. They agree to take turns, starting with Jo. On Tuesday, Jo negotiates who will empty the dustbin. To Addy, Jo has forgotten what they agreed... re-entering negotiation implies that Jo might be going to propose a change to their earlier agreement.​

Folk can judge whether those two contrived worlds match what they meant by negotiation, and where there are differences. I give this example in order to advocate that posters spell out what they mean. That is, to describe what they picture happening at the table, potentially including their expectations about the thought processes of those involved.

Which of your two examples did not involve negotiation?

Another question, which of the two sounds more like an RPG? The one where everything is clearly understood from the outset and then never needs clarification or revisiting? Or the one where we have to periodically reestablish the agreed upon terms?

 

[hawkeyefan]

In D&D the players are in charge of their characters, the GM is in control of the rest. That's how the game works. Having control of the main characters of the fiction is a lot of control, especially if there is not some "adventure path" or "main plot" the GM is trying to get the characters to follow.

Okay, you say this.... but how? How does having control of the characters make the game player driven? Is the DM obligated to honor any and all decisions the players make? When they veer radically away from what's already going on, is the DM expected to handle that on the fly? Does he need to stop the session so he can then prepare what will happen after the shift?

Do the players have a say about what the game is about prior to play beginning? During play?

I'm asking you to explain what you mean by player driven, not just repeat that you think it is player driven. What makes it so?

It might be pointless to you, it is pretty damn important to some of us. To me the defining feature of RPGs is inhabiting a character and making decisions from the perspective of said character. And sure, to facilitate the functioning of game we need to sometimes step out of that perspective, but I want significant part of the decision making to be in-character not out-of-character.

If I'm talking about the game as a game... what the participants can do... then there is no "meta".

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again. Please stop making this personal. You are welcome to report/block/ignore me but I’m drawing the line at making it personal.

For what it’s worth. I’m happy to discuss points as soon as the personal attacks stop.

There's nothing personal about what I've posted. You can respond or not, as you prefer.