RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, of course they can.

Just a (possibly irrelevant) note; in some styles of GMing that "of course" is not a given.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, of course they can.

The process described includes that there is a step, randomisation, in which some participant will propose contents of a set - which are game outcomes - and someone else will accept or refuse those proposed contents - i.e. not opt into even the possibility of those outcomes.

That's what folk are calling a negotiation - a proposal followed by acceptance or refusal. And as @Thomas Shey implies, that doesn't have to be true of all RPGs. For example, it can be set up like this -

GM: there is a sheer 60' wall here (not a proposal, a statement of fact)​

Player: my character will try to climb the wall (not a proposal, a statement of fact - the character will indeed try)​

GM: make a Dexterity ability check no modifier (not a proposal, player cannot decline)​

System: failure means take d6 damage per 10' always based on falling from halfway (not a proposal in the moment, a pre-agreed fact)​

The above is what I am envisioning, which proceeds as a series of assertions and clarifications, with no in the moment options to accept or refuse. One could argue that this relocates the negotiation into participants' mental states, rather than language between them: which might make roshambo implicitly a negotiation!

 

[Thomas Shey]

The process described includes that there is a step, randomisation, in which some participant will propose contents of a set - which are game outcomes - and someone else will accept or refuse those proposed contents - i.e. not opt into even the possibility of those outcomes.

That's what folk are calling a negotiation - a proposal followed by acceptance or refusal. And as @Thomas Shey implies, that doesn't have to be true of all RPGs. For example, it can be set up like this -

GM: there is a sheer 60' wall here (not a proposal, a statement of fact)​

Player: my character will try to climb the wall (not a proposal, a statement of fact - the character will indeed try)​

GM: make a Dexterity ability check no modifier (not a proposal, player cannot decline)​

System: failure means take d6 damage per 10' always based on falling from halfway (not a proposal in the moment, a pre-agreed fact)​

The above is what I am envisioning, which proceeds as a series of assertions and clarifications, with no in the moment options to accept or refuse. One could argue that this relocates the negotiation into participants' mental states, rather than language between them: which might make roshambo implicitly a negotiation!

The other significant question is whether the player gets to change their mind at the point when they get to know the actual difficulty. Unless this is strongly standardized (so they could look at the GM's first statement and already know what sort and difficulty the roll probably was out the gate), its often the case where the player's conception of that and the GM's are very different (and even when that standardization exists, the degree of detail the GM gives can impact it). Some GMs consider that metagaming, whereas others (and many players) consider it communication of the actual situation (I'm leaving out here for the moment "hidden modifiers" which in many cases should be an element of the randomization of the die roll instead of a different modifier, but that's neither of these are a given or non-controversial).

 

[clearstream]

The other significant question is whether the player gets to change their mind at the point when they get to know the actual difficulty. Unless this is strongly standardized...

Perhaps in games like ToR where in many cases you are rolling against your attribute. Or as some 5e GMs attest to, where a short list of difficulty classes is used (e.g. only 12 and 20) so that players normally know what the DC is going to be. Games using karma-mechanics of course require no roll at all. And it strikes me that given their fixed target numbers, if one wanted to, one could utilize PbtA mechanics to avoid in the moment negotiation except where strictly compelled by results!

 

[Pedantic]

The other significant question is whether the player gets to change their mind at the point when they get to know the actual difficulty. Unless this is strongly standardized (so they could look at the GM's first statement and already know what sort and difficulty the roll probably was out the gate), its often the case where the player's conception of that and the GM's are very different (and even when that standardization exists, the degree of detail the GM gives can impact it). Some GMs consider that metagaming, whereas others (and many players) consider it communication of the actual situation (I'm leaving out here for the moment "hidden modifiers" which in many cases should be an element of the randomization of the die roll instead of a different modifier, but that's neither of these are a given or non-controversial).

This division exists in board games as well, and is usually a matter of agreed upon game etiquette. Generally speaking, you have two camps, one that holds action declarations to be absolute and requires they be resolved once initiated, and the other that holds they can be modified or taken back until a specific trigger in the game state is reached. Nearly always, that trigger is the introduction of new information that could not be attained before the action, i.e. another player playing a card from hand, revealing a hidden resources on the board, or even just beginning their own action declaration that hinges upon the information gathered from the first.

There's differing schools of thought, but the second position is usually thought to be more friendly, and whether "mistakes" that are possible under the first are good and interesting for gameplay is something that's only decided on a game by game basis. Guards of Atlantis has specific rules enforcing the former perspective, while it would be considered quite rude to assume it in a game of Netrunner at anything but the highest levels of competitive play.

In the RPG case, I'd argue the necessarily obscured nature of the game state makes a compelling case for the latter, barring as you said "hidden information" the player is not privy to. I personally have staked out a position that the rules should take a quite firm standardized stance on action difficulty precisely because it leads to better gameplay. In the loose 5e world I have to live in, my compromise is to consistently reveal target difficulties to players before they commit to actions.

 

[FrogReaver]

In relation to my immediate previous, I wanted to draw attention to this. I take some modes of play to not treat what the GM says as "proposals". To break that out for further clarity

GM: there is a sheer wall here (not a proposal, a statement of fact)​

Player: my character will try to climb the wall (not a proposal, a statement of fact - the character will indeed try)​

There is no negotiation in the above. Each makes definitive statements on matters they have authority over. And for contrast

Player: my character will try to climb the wall​

GM: really? no, I do not think your character would try to climb the wall (treats player's statement as a proposal that can be declined)​

Most groups have in place up-front agreements hostile to the latter.

I think some real world comparisons are important to. Ex: part 1: I agree today to give my friend 10 dollars after he buys my lunch tomorrow. Part 2: My friend buys my lunch. I give him 10 dollars.

I can see part 1 being a negotiation. I might not call it that but I understand. I don’t see part 2 being a negotiation or even how it can be called that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think some real world comparisons are important to. Ex: part 1: I agree today to give my friend 10 dollars after he buys my lunch tomorrow. Part 2: My friend buys my lunch. I give him 10 dollars.

I can see part 1 being a negotiation. I might not call it that but I understand. I don’t see part 2 being a negotiation or even how it can be called that.

How does part 2 come about without part 1?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I think some real world comparisons are important to. Ex: part 1: I agree today to give my friend 10 dollars after he buys my lunch tomorrow. Part 2: My friend buys my lunch. I give him 10 dollars.

I can see part 1 being a negotiation. I might not call it that but I understand. I don’t see part 2 being a negotiation or even how it can be called that.

I think your second example is skipping over a critical piece of information -- does your friend accept the $10? It seems like you're suggesting he does (you're giving, not offering), and I'd suggest that if he does then there has been a negotiation. Just not a contentious or interesting one.

Edit: I misread your post as two examples rather than one. I'll leave my nonsense here with the admission that this is what comes of doing too many things at once.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The process described includes that there is a step, randomisation, in which some participant will propose contents of a set - which are game outcomes - and someone else will accept or refuse those proposed contents - i.e. not opt into even the possibility of those outcomes.

That's what folk are calling a negotiation - a proposal followed by acceptance or refusal. And as @Thomas Shey implies, that doesn't have to be true of all RPGs. For example, it can be set up like this -

GM: there is a sheer 60' wall here (not a proposal, a statement of fact)​

Player: my character will try to climb the wall (not a proposal, a statement of fact - the character will indeed try)​

GM: make a Dexterity ability check no modifier (not a proposal, player cannot decline)​

System: failure means take d6 damage per 10' always based on falling from halfway (not a proposal in the moment, a pre-agreed fact)​

The above is what I am envisioning, which proceeds as a series of assertions and clarifications, with no in the moment options to accept or refuse. One could argue that this relocates the negotiation into participants' mental states, rather than language between them: which might make roshambo implicitly a negotiation!

For tasks like this where the characters can freely observe the obstacle I offer the DC before the player needs to commit to the roll. It seems reasonable to me that characters in the setting who are usually experienced adventures and routinely climb walls etc would be able to gauge approximately how hard the task is.

The other significant question is whether the player gets to change their mind at the point when they get to know the actual difficulty. Unless this is strongly standardized (so they could look at the GM's first statement and already know what sort and difficulty the roll probably was out the gate), its often the case where the player's conception of that and the GM's are very different (and even when that standardization exists, the degree of detail the GM gives can impact it). Some GMs consider that metagaming, whereas others (and many players) consider it communication of the actual situation (I'm leaving out here for the moment "hidden modifiers" which in many cases should be an element of the randomization of the die roll instead of a different modifier, but that's neither of these are a given or non-controversial).

Perhaps in games like ToR where in many cases you are rolling against your attribute. Or as some 5e GMs attest to, where a short list of difficulty classes is used (e.g. only 12 and 20) so that players normally know what the DC is going to be. Games using karma-mechanics of course require no roll at all. And it strikes me that given their fixed target numbers, if one wanted to, one could utilize PbtA mechanics to avoid in the moment negotiation except where strictly compelled by results!

Unless the DC is based on some other value (like passive perception) I use the standard six step difficulty scale from very easy (DC 5) to nearly impossible (DC 30) with DCs always being five points apart. I think I can mentally reasonably consistently model a six step scale, but a thirty step scale would be too much. And I think I am pretty decent at communicating the difficulty and being consistent, as at times the players have just guessed the correct DC from my description before I had a chance to tell them.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't picture the GM in the assumed mode of play (trad, neo-trad or OSR) as having any opinion on the character being at the top of the wall. They're not proposing an alternative version of the fiction, they're telling it like it is. Perhaps that helps tease out something beyond semantics: the idea that "competing concepts of the fiction need to be resolved". The concepts are not put in competion. In my example, GM does not negotiate on what player says their character says and does, and player does not negotiate on what GM describes, such as a sheer wall.

In the post you're replying to here, I felt the word "negotiation" was being used as a replacement for "game mechanics".

The player wants to get a character up a wall. The GM says the wall isn't going to co-operate but that the character has a chance of getting up. While in a few systems this might be resolved by actual negotiation, i.e. a give-and-take discussion between the player and the GM; in the vast majority of systems this gets resolved via game mechanics usually (but not always - thanks, Dredd) involving dice.

And game mechanics do not equal negotiation. They're more like binding arbitration, where positions are set and then an arbitrator (in this case, the game mechanics) decides which of those positions will prevail.