RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

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?

So maybe the substantive difference in our views is that I'm picturing "negotiation" entails suspension or up-for-suspension and resumption or acknowledgement-of acceptance, which in many modes of play I do not experience: a fact I put down to prelusory agreements.

Whether that amounts to a difference between us or not, what might amount to a difference is what job you think prelusory agreements are doing (e.g. cultural lusory norms, and game text principles and agenda)?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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?

So I think I said “ relatively player driven” or something like that. I am not claiming it is most player driven game ever or anything like that.

In any case, this discussion is so weird. I presume you have played non-adventure path games or games that do not follow similar structure? So the game is about what the characters decide to do. So if the characters decide to rob the wizard’s house then the session is about that, if they decide to travel to investigate rumours about dragons at a volcano, then the game is about that, if they decide to enter into an arena fight league then it is about that an so forth.

And sure, there of course are GM designed situations that invite a reaction from the characters. Now sometimes the response that the situation elicits is rather obvious (for example if I frame a situation where travellers are being attacked by obvious monsters it is highly likely that the characters will try to help the travellers) but bigger situations I try to set up as more open ended with some moral grey so that there isn’t obvious solution or obvious allies and enemies.

And no, I don’t need to pause game to prep, as I usually vaguely prep likely things for a given location and it is not hard to come up more on the fly if needed. But I try to pace things so that we can reasonably establish at the end of each session what the characters’ plans for the next one are so I have rough idea what to prep.

And whilst I have thought about my settings quite a bit, it still remains rather broad strokes in many ways, so in effect what the characters are interested in dictates what I will develop more.

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

You understand meta game is, so you also understand if some people wish to structure player influence so that it is mainly exercised via the character.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

• Accusing me of tone policing is personal.
• Accusing me of avoiding discussion is personal.
• Accusing me of claiming offense at everything is personal.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

This!

There’s also another point of semantic difference - whether clarification is negotiation. As in DM: you see some orcs approaching your position. You are hidden. Player: how close are the orcs to me?

I’ve maintained that this is not. However, I believe others have suggested it was.

 

[clearstream]

This!

There’s also another point of semantic difference - whether clarification is negotiation. As in DM: you see some orcs approaching your position. You are hidden. Player: how close are the orcs to me?

I’ve maintained that this is not. However, I believe others have suggested it was.

The thing to tease out is whether it's just semantics, or whether there is a meaningful difference in what is pictured?

For instance, I would not count clarification as "negotiation", but if a process being labelled "negotiation" were just one of clarifying, then the difference could be limited to semantics.

 

[niklinna]

• Accusing me of tone policing is personal.
• Accusing me of avoiding discussion is personal.
• Accusing me of claiming offense at everything is personal.

In that they all involve a person, yes, I suppose that's true. But the statements (or "accusations" as you prefer) all hold water as far as I'm concerned.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

To me that isn’t a negotiation in either case.

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?

Wibbling sounds fine though. I would say what you call wibbling is simply reaching an agreement and agreements can be reached either with or without negotiation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

• Accusing me of tone policing is personal.
• Accusing me of avoiding discussion is personal.
• Accusing me of claiming offense at everything is personal.

They’re all clearly true, Frogreaver. I’m simply observing the contents of your posts.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So maybe the substantive difference in our views is that I'm picturing "negotiation" entails suspension or up-for-suspension and resumption or acknowledgement-of acceptance, which in many modes of play I do not experience: a fact I put down to prelusory agreements.

Whether that amounts to a difference between us or not, what might amount to a difference is what job you think prelusory agreements are doing (e.g. cultural lusory norms, and game text principles and agenda)?

In my experience, the need to revisit and reevaluate the negotiations happens quite a bit during play. Reminding another participant of a relevant ability or situation, or clarifying position or situation so that everyone is on the same page.

To my mind, all of this is clearly negotiation. It’s discussion aimed at making sure all are in agreement.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I think I said “ relatively player driven” or something like that. I am not claiming it is most player driven game ever or anything like that.

In any case, this discussion is so weird. I presume you have played non-adventure path games or games that do not follow similar structure? So the game is about what the characters decide to do. So if the characters decide to rob the wizard’s house then the session is about that, if they decide to travel to investigate rumours about dragons at a volcano, then the game is about that, if they decide to enter into arena fight league then it is about that an so forth.

And sure, there of course are GM designed situations that invite a reaction from the characters. Now sometimes the response that the situation elicits is rather obvious (for example if I frame a situation where travellers are being attacked by obvious monsters it is highly likely that the characters will try to help the travellers) but bigger situations I try to set up as more open ended with some moral grey so that there isn’t obvious solution or obvious allies and enemies.

And no, I don’t need to pause game to prep, as I usually vaguely prep likely things for a given location and it is not hard to come up more on the fly if needed. But I try to pace things so that we can reasonably establish at the end of each session what the characters’ plans for the next one are so I have rough idea what to prep.

And whilst I have thought about my settings quite a bit, it still remains rather broad strokes in many ways, so in effect what the characters are interested in dictates what I will develop more.

Okay, so really instead of GM says, it sounds more like of a mix of GM input and player input. Which to me, means there’s negotiating going on.

It's how the shared fiction is established.

You understand meta game is, so you also understand if some people wish to structure player influence so that it is mainly exercised via the character.

Right. But when someone says “besides the actions of their characters, how do players have input on play” it’s a bit odd to keep saying “through the actions of their characters”.

I’m talking specifically about players. Can the players craft a background detail during character creation (or even after) that obligates the GM to include it? Can the players say “this seafaring stuff isn’t really doing it for me… can we put into port and try and establish a thieves’ guild?” Or maybe “I’d really like to use the domain stuff from Strongholds and Followers… can we incorporate those items?”

I was asking for examples like that.