RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Composer99]

I don't really perceive @pemerton's original post privileging any particular style of playing a roleplaying game.

Indeed, it mostly seems (to me at any rate) to assert the rather non-controversial point that what distinguishes tabletop RPGs from other kinds of game (most notably board games or card games) is that part of the game state exists only in the imagination of the participants through the shared fiction established during gameplay, possibly with input from "unshared" fiction previously established by the GM.

Contrast this with chess, Axis Empires, Last Night on Earth, Jenga [*], Unstable Unicorns (etc. etc.) where the entirety of the game state exists, more or less, in the disposition of the playing pieces, without any requirement for an imagined game state at all.

I'm not familiar with the Kriegsspiel-style games from whence D&D is derived, but my impression is that they inhabit a sort of middle space. For instance, the Wikipedia entry for Kriegsspiel notes that playing pieces were often kept off the map until they were spotted by the enemy, meaning that at least in principle there was an imagined game state, even if it wasn't necessarily shared - it may well be that in classic KS play only the referee is obliged to construct a game state existing in the imagination. (I will leave it to those familiar with Kriegsspiel to elaborate.)

It seems to me that if nothing else, the effectively unbounded set of actions that characters may undertake or relationships they may have with NPCs aren't going to be fulsomely represented by a concrete game state - making it very difficult for me to imagine that it's possible to, say, play an RPG without at least a very minimal imagined game state established via shared fiction [**]. By way of example, even OD&D suggested miniatures were optional, in a game that was a follow on from a miniatures wargame - see page 5 of Book I Men & Magic. Without miniatures, the action exists almost entirely in the shared imagination of the participants.

---

Notes
[*] An amusing contrast to Dread, which happens to use a Jenga tower as its expression of game mechanics.
[**] Note that how this shared fiction and imagined game state are established can and will vary considerably from game to game. I would expect that how the imagined game state comes to be in, say, OD&D, with its expectation of "pawn-stance" player character gameplay and map-and-key referee setup will look very different from how it comes to be in, say, Blades in the Dark or Dread. All well and good!

---

The core tropes of 4e are D&D through-and-through: classes, races, Kobolds-to-Orcus, hit points as non-physical until the fatal blow, etc, etc.

I daresay that it's more the core tropes of other editions of D&D that 4e doesn't share that make it feel "not enough" like D&D for those players as don't care for it.

 

[Umbran]

I don't really perceive @pemerton's original post privileging any particular style of playing a roleplaying game.

It might, though. Let's look at your next bits...

Indeed, it mostly seems (to me at any rate) to assert the rather non-controversial point that what distinguishes tabletop RPGs from other kinds of game (most notably board games or card games) is that part of the game state exists only in the imagination of the participants through the shared fiction established during gameplay...

Contrast this with chess, Axis Empires, Last Night on Earth, Jenga [*], Unstable Unicorns (etc. etc.) where the entirety of the game state exists, more or less, in the disposition of the playing pieces, without any requirement for an imagined game state at all.

So, first of all, we can note that there are people who can, remarkably, play chess without any playing pieces. They can keep track of the game state in their heads, without externalizing it. I am assuming this is not what you are referring to - that this is really a matter of the medium used for bookkeeping, not "game state is in the imagination". Would I be correct in that assumption?

If so, then we must consider the RPG in the same light. Let us consider a session of D&D in which we are playing with character sheets, a published adventure, battlemats and minis, those neat little rings that denote conditions, and all that. We have physical elements for all the bookkeeping of play.

What, then are game state elements that are required for play, but fundamentally cannot be externalized in some matter - that are required to be in the imagination, and can't be elsewhere?

This will probably come down to an argument over what constitutes game state, and what constitutes non-game narrative state.

 

[pemerton]

What, then are game state elements that are required for play to exist, and fundamentally cannot be externalized in some matter - that are required to be in the imagination, and can't be elsewhere?

Here's an example, from a frequently-discussed 5e spell:

Knock
2nd level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Target: An object that you can see within range
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
Classes: Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard

Choose an object that you can see within range. The object can be a door, a box, a chest, a set of manacles, a padlock, or another object that contains a mundane or magical means that prevents access.

A target that is held shut by a mundane lock or that is stuck or barred becomes unlocked, unstuck, or unbarred. If the object has multiple locks, only one of them is unlocked.

If you choose a target that is held shut with arcane lock, that spell is suppressed for 10 minutes, during which time the target can be opened and shut normally.

When you cast the spell, a loud knock, audible from as far away as 300 feet, emanates from the target object.​

A player declares I cast knock. Here are the aspects of that action declaration that can only be resolved by way of imagining how things unfold in a fiction:

• Whether or not the target is visible to the caster (given light, other obscuring objects, etc);
• Whether the target has means that prevent access;
• What happens when a loud noise is caused to emanate from the target object.

 

[Umbran]

Here's an example, from a frequently-discussed 5e spell:

Knock​

2nd level transmutation​

​

...​

A player declares I cast knock. Here are the aspects of that action declaration that can only be resolved by way of imagining how things unfold in a fiction:

• Whether or not the target is visible to the caster (given light, other obscuring objects, etc);

Oh, but I said we had a battlemat, miniatures, and such. There are standards for determining line of sight on a battlemat - typically if you can trace a line from any corner of the square/hex the PC occupies to the point in question, without touching an obstructing object's square/hex, there are no obscuring objects. Lighting effects can be externalized with markers, and the impact of light levels on Perception ability checks are in the rules, and the GM can mark the object on the map as having a valid target for the spell .

Much of this is typically managed in the imagination, because that is easier. But it is not required. We could imagine, in fact, automating this in a videogame - the player selects a skill, and in a dropdown chooses to have the game mark all points in line of sight that are valid targets for that skill. The system can apply lighting effects and use either passive or active perception checks, and display targets.

And that's likely what we will find if we break down most hypothetical candidates for "must be in the imagination" - that they are the things we usually do in imagination, but realize that it isn't required to be in the imagination.

• Whether the target has means that prevent access;

The GM is working from a published adventure - it tells you when things are locked, stuck, etc.

• What happens when a loud noise is caused to emanate from the target object.

So, if we are to be picky, no. "What happens" is not a game state. What happens are changes in the game state - transitions from one state to another. Some of the changes in game state will be dictated by the rules, other changes in game state will be choices by the players.

We would presume that, in D&D, there'll be perception checks for all creatures within range. Those that make the check may potentially act when their place in initiative comes up. What the GM chooses to have creatures do is not "state", but is choice - equivalent to the chess player choosing to move a pawn or a knight.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Oh, but I said we had a battlemat, miniatures, and such. There are standards for determining line of sight on a battlemat - typically if you can trace a line from any corner of the square/hex the PC occupies to the point in question, without touching an obstructing object's square/hex, there are no obscuring objects. Lighting effects can be externalized with markers, and the impact of light levels on Perception ability checks are in the rules, and the GM can mark the object on the map as having a valid target for the spell .

Much of this is typically managed in the imagination, because that is easier. But it is not required. We could imagine, in fact, automating this in a videogame - the player selects a skill, and in a dropdown chooses to have the game mark all points in line of sight that are valid targets for that skill. The system can apply lighting effects and use either passive or active perception checks, and display targets.

And that's likely what we will find if we break down most hypothetical candidates for "must be in the imagination" - that they are the things we usually do in imagination, but realize that it isn't required to be in the imagination.



The GM is working from a published adventure - it tells you when things are locked, stuck, etc.



So, if we are to be picky, no. "What happens" is not a game state. What happens are changes in the game state - transitions from one state to another. Some of the changes in game state will be dictated by the rules, other changes in game state will be choices by the players.

We would presume that, in D&D, there'll be perception checks for all creatures within range. Those that make the check may potentially act when their place in initiative comes up. What the GM chooses to have creatures do is not "state", but is choice - equivalent to the chess player choosing to move a pawn or a knight.

You’re really going out of your way to disagree here. I mean, even with maps and minis, you’re imagining things. That time is flowing normally for the characters rather than in some kind of stop-motion movement due to initiative. That everyone’s movement is not bound by some kind of grid. That the sword in my mini’s hand is actually an axe. That lightning bolts can shoot from people’s hands. That my character ate and drank and relieved himself at some point. That he can fight perfectly fine while carrying a backpack with 40 pounds of gear in it. That dragons breathe fire and acid.

And so on.

This idea that saying shared imagination is essential to RPGs is somehow being dismissive of others is utterly bonkers.

 

[pemerton]

Oh, but I said we had a battlemat, miniatures, and such. There are standards for determining line of sight on a battlemat - typically if you can trace a line from any corner of the square/hex the PC occupies to the point in question, without touching an obstructing object's square/hex, there are no obscuring objects.

What if there is a curtain hanging from the ceiling to about 2 feet above the ground? And what if it is a gauze curtain? This is something that has to be adjudicated, by reference to imagined fiction.

The GM is working from a published adventure - it tells you when things are locked, stuck, etc.

In every case? What if it tells you that there is a door, with a bar across it? How does someone work out that that means that the door is stuck/unopenable? By exercising their imagination.

Much of this is typically managed in the imagination, because that is easier. But it is not required. We could imagine, in fact, automating this in a videogame - the player selects a skill, and in a dropdown chooses to have the game mark all points in line of sight that are valid targets for that skill. The system can apply lighting effects and use either passive or active perception checks, and display targets.

Perhaps it can, but I don't know that this is typically done - eg I GMed a lot of 4e D&D, drew up many pictures on graph paper, but never suspended to-scale patches of gauze and tried to simulate how a light might shine through them to render object behind visible.

You could also program your video-game with a "noise" framework, with rules for who might hear things and how they respond, etc. But again I don't believe how that is most people adjudicate Knock. They do so by imagining things.

The last time I GMed a session of Moldvay Basic, I was using the Haunted Keep. One of the rooms has a pool of water in it. The fighter carried the halfling through the water on his shoulders, so that she was not at risk of drowning. This is an exercise of imagination: it is not the manipulation of any pieces on a board (actual or imaginary as in blindfold chess); it is not the carrying out of a mathematical operation; it is deploying one's knowledge of how people can carry other people on their shoulders, and of how they might do so through a pond - like a parent with a child - and deploying that knowledge to imagine a new situation that, in dint of being assented to by all the participants, becomes part of the shared fiction and part of the new "game state".

This sort of thing is inherent to playing RPGs. And it was part of D&D from the beginning - the player who did this in the Basic session, had she been born 40 years earlier, would have declared exactly the same action had she been playing at Arneson's or Gygax's table, and they would have handled it without any problems.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't see imagination at the core of an RPG, though sure it sounds nice, warm and fuzzy to say so.

Lo the half century ago...D&D was created as a combat adventure game.

(Disclaimer: everyone has their own unique way of fun. There is no wrong way to have fun)

And many, about half, played the game right as given in the rules: endless mindless roll playing combat. Many players even today with 5E still play D&D only this way. They put a name on their character sheet, then just want to do little else but endlessly fight monsters...and maybe explore a tiny bit...and maybe, maybe do a puzzle once in a while. But mostly just endless combat. Exactly like such 'action adventure' type video games: mindless monsters attack and you kill them (press that x button lots of times!). No imagination is required here.

The other half of the players....wanted a little bit more. They wanted to add a story. They wanted to role play...act out their characters life. So they did. They simply ignored the rule book on the table and role played. And when you were role playing, you were not "really" playing D&D. It's simple enough: if your not using any game rules your not playing the game. But as role players don't care about such 'offical' things, they simply said they were playing D&D. Nearly all imagination, and only a light sprinkle of rules as a framework.

And so the two ways to play came to be....even up till today.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't see imagination at the core of an RPG, though sure it sounds nice, warm and fuzzy to say so.

Lo the half century ago...D&D was created as a combat adventure game.

(Disclaimer: everyone has their own unique way of fun. There is no wrong way to have fun)

And many, about half, played the game right as given in the rules: endless mindless roll playing combat. Many players even today with 5E still play D&D only this way. They put a name on their character sheet, then just want to do little else but endlessly fight monsters...and maybe explore a tiny bit...and maybe, maybe do a puzzle once in a while. But mostly just endless combat. Exactly like such 'action adventure' type video games: mindless monsters attack and you kill them (press that x button lots of times!). No imagination is required here.

The other half of the players....wanted a little bit more. They wanted to add a story. They wanted to role play...act out their characters life. So they did. They simply ignored the rule book on the table and role played. And when you were role playing, you were not "really" playing D&D. It's simple enough: if your not using any game rules your not playing the game. But as role players don't care about such 'offical' things, they simply said they were playing D&D. Nearly all imagination, and only a light sprinkle of rules as a framework.

And so the two ways to play came to be....even up till today.

This is a remarkably bad take. It assumes the worst about everyone involved and ignores what I would expect would be a huge amount of players who don’t fit into one of your groups or the other.

 

[Umbran]

You’re really going out of your way to disagree here.

And you're making this about me, personally, rather than the points I raised.

You know how often we tell folks to not do that, to not make it personal? Please don't do it here. I will not accept it as a direction of argument.

This idea that saying shared imagination is essential to RPGs is somehow being dismissive of others is utterly bonkers.

Right, because "bonkers" isn't at all dismissive of others?

I think you've made my point for me. Thank you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And you're making this about me, personally, rather than the points I raised.

You know how often we tell folks to not do that, to not make it personal? Please don't do it here. I will not accept it as a direction of argument.



Right, because "bonkers" isn't at all dismissive of others?

I think you've made my point for me. Thank you.

I’m not making it personal. I’m describing how your posts seem. I don’t believe that you are bonkers. The idea that imagination isn’t central to RPGs is bonkers. I do dismiss that idea.

What I’ve not done is claim to understand your motive for posting that. You’re the one telling others what their motives are… which seems a lot more personal to me and also goes against your own past moderation.