RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Committed Hero]

What do posters here consider mechanics that foster (or hinder) imagination, for varying values of imagination? I can get inspiration by simply reading a well written game book, but I can't see that being what the OP had in mind.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just a quick thing.

Whenever I read or say "negotiate" when it comes to TTRPGs, I'm not reading or saying something like "offer > counteroffer > rinse/repeat until we arrive at agreement."

What I'm reading and saying is "continuously traverse the mental and structural landscape (which is what rules and TTRPG play ultimately are) together, formally and informally resolving any contentious states along the path until there is nothing left to traverse."

What would you say the difference in traversal as you describe it above and just playing the game?

 

[FrogReaver]

Here is one simple and in my view reasonably typical example from D&D play:

The GM tells the players that their PCs arrive at a town. One of the PCs says "I want to go and see a metal-worker, to see if I can buy a silver dagger or some silver-tipped arrows to deal with that werewolf that's been tracking us." The GM considers this action declaration, consults their notes which mention "a typical town" but say nothing about the availability of silvered weapons, decides there's a 50-50 chance, makes a roll, which comes up negative, and then tells the player "You find your way to a weaponsmith, but they don't have any silver or silvered weapons on hand." Then the player says, "We've got that sack of silver pieces, right?" and another player nods, and the first player says "Can the weaponsmith do it if I supply the silver", and the GM thinks about this . . .​

That sounds much to me like simply playing the game.

Here's another:

The PCs are exploring a dungeon. The GM tells them that suddenly, around the corner in front of them, comes a group of 3 ogres. The PCs are surprised! Then one of the players says "Hey, did you take it account of <this alertness-type feature that I got as a result of levelling up last session>?" The GM replies "Oops, I forgot about that. OK, so the ogres come around the corner but you're not surprised - you hear them coming and have time to ready your weapons and roll for initiative!"​

There are endless variations on the above in D&D, because of all its intricate little components: did you remember my protection effect, my combat buff, the fact that I'm doing fire damage, etc, etc.

I spoke earlier about this very class of problem. I wouldn't consider players or DM's forgetting rules and being corrected to be an example of anything specific to an RPG. Happens all the time in non-RPG's. Especially any with fairly complex rules. Magic the Gathering is a good example.

Here's another:

The GM tells the players, based on extrapolation from whatever has happened so far, "OK, it's dark and you're all starting to get cold." One of the players says "We light a fire." The GM replies "OK, tell me how. Does anyone have a tinderbox? What are you using for fuel?"​

The GM seeking more information from the players before assenting to their suggestion that a certain sort of craft-y or creation-y outcome is part of the fiction is very, very common in D&D play.

This also sounds very much like simply playing the game to me.

Here's another:

A player says, "My magic-user wants to research a spell that will let us track the location of the <whatever>." And so the GM pulls out the rules chapter on spell research, and the player and GM start to work out what the PC has to do to research this spell.​

Here's another:

The group are resolving a combat. A player says "I attack the Hobgoblin!" The GM replies "How do you do that? You've just finished killing the Bugbear, and the Hobgoblin is on the other side of the room from where the two of you were fighting?" "OK, I move across the room first. Can I do that without being attacked by the giant ape on the way?"​

And another:

The GM tells the players that their PCs come to a dead-end room, with a ceiling about 20' high. The player of the Half-Orc barbarian says "The Halfling gets up on my shoulders and starts tapping the walls as high up as she can to see if they're hollow." The GM asks, "OK, what's your DEX? Is either of you trained in Acrobatics?" And the player responds, "Redgar" - the human fighter with 18 STR and 16 DEX - "joins us, so that Redgar and I are really stable with arms around one another's shoulders and the Halfling stands on both of us." And so the conversation goes on . . .​

That last one is inspired by Gygax's example of play in his DMG.

As these examples illustrate, and as I hope is reinforced by the myriad other possible examples that they bring to mind, coming to agreement on what is happening in the fiction is at the core of D&D game play.

Here you've went back to negotiating being an agreement instead of a traversal. None of these examples require the kind of in the moment agreement you are talking about. All of them are instead reliant on the initial agreement to play the game by the rules. Yes, consent can be withdrawn at any time for any reason - but that's true of any game. There's nothing fundamentally special about that notion when it comes to RPG's.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That sounds much to me like simply playing the game.

It also sounds a lot like negotiation. Almost as if playing the game involves negotiating on the elements of the shared fiction and how they're determined.

Come on, man... you don't know what core means, and now you can't recognize negotiation?

 

[pemerton]

Here you've went back to negotiating being an agreement instead of a traversal.

I've not said anything about traversal. (I'm not @Manbearcat.)

I'm using "negotiate" in the same sense as Vincent Baker does, namely, to obtain or bring about by discussion (this is taken from Oxford Languages via Google). In RPGing, coordination of what is imagined by the participants is achieved via discussion and the reaching of consensus. (Contrast, say, a film, in which coordination of what is imagined by the viewers is achieved via presenting them with the same sequence of moving pictures and accompanying soundtrack.)

None of these examples require the kind of in the moment agreement you are talking about. All of them are instead reliant on the initial agreement to play the game by the rules.

They are all examples of establishing the fiction via a discussion to obtain consensus in respect of what is imagined:

*Consensus as to what crafting can take place in the town;
*Consensus as to whether or not the PCs are surprised by the ogres;
*Consensus as to whether and how the PCs might light a fire;
*Consensus as to how a PC might research a spell;
*Consensus as to whether and how a PC can cross from one side of the room to the other, so as to fight the Hobgoblin, without being stopped by the giant ape in the middle of the room;
*Consensus as to whether the two burly PCs can have the small PC stand on their shoulders and tap the wall to see if it sounds like there is a space behind it.​

The fact that these are all examples of playing the game in accordance with its rules is no surprise. That's what the rules are for: to facilitate the reaching of consensus over what is collectively imagined!

 

[niklinna]

I've not said anything about traversal. (I'm not @Manbearcat.)

I'm using "negotiate" in the same sense as Vincent Baker does, namely, to obtain or bring about by discussion (this is taken from Oxford Languages via Google). In RPGing, coordination of what is imagined by the participants is achieved via discussion and the reaching of consensus. (Contrast, say, a film, in which coordination of what is imagined by the viewers is achieved via presenting them with the same sequence of moving pictures and accompanying soundtrack.)

They are all examples of establishing the fiction via a discussion to obtain consensus in respect of what is imagined:

*Consensus as to what crafting can take place in the town;​

*Consensus as to whether or not the PCs are surprised by the ogres;​

*Consensus as to whether and how the PCs might light a fire;​

*Consensus as to how a PC might research a spell;​

*Consensus as to whether and how a PC can cross from one side of the room to the other, so as to fight the Hobgoblin, without being stopped by the giant ape in the middle of the room;​

*Consensus as to whether the two burly PCs can have the small PC stand on their shoulders and tap the wall to see if it sounds like there is a space behind it.​

The fact that these are all examples of playing the game in accordance with its rules is no surprise. That's what the rules are for: to facilitate the reaching of consensus over what is collectively imagined!

Well but, by initially agreeing to play the game by the rules, everyone has already come to all possible in the moment agreements, clearly. Therefore nothing requires in the moment agreements, because all of those undecided things have in fact been decided initially. (For some meaning of "initially", and/or perhaps "moment", and/or especially "example". And also maybe "agreement"? I mean we haven't established a consensus on that.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Some of those negotiations seemed to me just be clarifying facts. I guess one could call it negotiation if one wants.
I rather lost the track why it matters what word is used.

 

[Manbearcat]

Some of those negotiations seemed to me just be clarifying facts. I guess one could call it negotiation if one wants.
I rather lost the track why it matters what word is used.

It doesn’t matter or rather; shouldn’t.

The only reason I offered my input on the topic is the same reason I offer my input on “writers’ room.”

It’s to dispel a false notion of both process and purpose.

(I) Navigating/traversing/negotiating (whatever) a continual series of inputs into gamestate/shared imagination (ii) that might be at some level of odds (iii) via structure, authority distribution, and amicable conversation (all in the service of content generation/benign update of play space) is not the same as the specific conception of a game-bogging, adversarial, offer > counteroffer > deal struck or mediator with full authority declaring “what is” (in the service of settling a fraught question of “who gets what”) that I detected was emerging.

I just wanted to dispel a specific, incorrect conception before that cake got baked. Cost me all of two minutes. It wasn’t worth the small cost (probably never is).

 

[clearstream]

Well but, by initially agreeing to play the game by the rules, everyone has already come to all possible in the moment agreements, clearly. Therefore nothing requires in the moment agreements, because all of those undecided things have in fact been decided initially. (For some meaning of "initially", and/or perhaps "moment", and/or especially "example". And also maybe "agreement"? I mean we haven't established a consensus on that.)

It's certainly part of what I intended to imply concerning "just so long as one includes the prospect that the superior agreement might have been imperfectly formed" and in a subsequent post "cases we are dealing with readily stray outside our promises." Consider -

During an ordinary shopping expedition in New Pavis a player asks [RQ7] "How much for a bison-hair cloak" and their GM consults a table and says "Three lunars" so the player deducts three lunars from the total on their character sheet and writes there "bison-hair cloak".​

Why don't they - every time - get into a discussion about the availability and costs of bison-hair cloaks in New Pavis? If they have to agree in every moment, don't they need to have that discussion?

It is Fire season and the group is in Balazar. A player asks about the weather. GM rolls a 7 and says that it is hot, clear, no precipitation.​

Is it expected that - every time - the group will get into a discussion about whether that is true? That doesn't describe very well play that I have participated in and observed of RuneQuest. But these examples have been chosen to represent what I suppose for most groups is safe ground. The tables in question give clear direction as to what to add to ongoing play. Suppose a player asked a follow-up, like "How hot, exactly?" or "Can I tell if it will rain tomorrow?" Or if due to ongoing conflict GM had earlier described that goods are scarce in New Pavis?

You used the word "agreement" and I think that requires more to be said about "our promises". Our promises are not of the form that when asked what the weather is we have agreed to say it is "hot" - i.e. it's not a commitment that a specific detail will be true. Rather it's a promise that we'll follow the rules and where in doing so we roll on a weather table that indicates "hot, clear, no rain", we have agreed up-front to work that "hot, clear, no rain" result into our ongoing game state.

@pemerton's examples I take to test where we "stray outside" our up-front promises, which will often happen because of the open-ended contents of [imagine].

Here is one simple and in my view reasonably typical example from D&D play:

The GM tells the players that their PCs arrive at a town. One of the PCs says "I want to go and see a metal-worker, to see if I can buy a silver dagger or some silver-tipped arrows to deal with that werewolf that's been tracking us." The GM considers this action declaration, consults their notes which mention "a typical town" but say nothing about the availability of silvered weapons, decides there's a 50-50 chance, makes a roll, which comes up negative, and then tells the player "You find your way to a weaponsmith, but they don't have any silver or silvered weapons on hand." Then the player says, "We've got that sack of silver pieces, right?" and another player nods, and the first player says "Can the weaponsmith do it if I supply the silver", and the GM thinks about this . . .​

No table result is available here, and it's interesting to ask what kinds of things can the GM say in response to that request? Can they say anything they like?

"Sure, but you'll have to sacrifice a finger for each arrow."
"Sure, but after doing it, it turns out that the arrows mind-control their possessor. I'll roleplay your character now."
"Sure, but [in the anticipated encounter] it turns out the werewolf is invulnerable to silvered weapons."

To my mind, we see good evidence that any moment-to-moment agreements are made within the bounds of prior over-arching agreements. (Assuming the inclusion of agenda and principles in contemporary game texts were not evidence enough!)

Here's another:

The PCs are exploring a dungeon. The GM tells them that suddenly, around the corner in front of them, comes a group of 3 ogres. The PCs are surprised! Then one of the players says "Hey, did you take it account of <this alertness-type feature that I got as a result of levelling up last session>?" The GM replies "Oops, I forgot about that. OK, so the ogres come around the corner but you're not surprised - you hear them coming and have time to ready your weapons and roll for initiative!"​

There are endless variations on the above in D&D, because of all its intricate little components: did you remember my protection effect, my combat buff, the fact that I'm doing fire damage, etc, etc.

No in-the-moment agreement is being made here: we're just applying an up-front agreement to follow the rules within human limitations. "Oh, I forgot the rule says X, we need to retcon that slightly." I can extend the example to have GM ignore that up-front agreement "Nope, too late, I don't care that it's a rule. They get surprise!" That would be a negotiation... it's absence from the example reinforces my point.

Here's another:

The GM tells the players, based on extrapolation from whatever has happened so far, "OK, it's dark and you're all starting to get cold." One of the players says "We light a fire." The GM replies "OK, tell me how. Does anyone have a tinderbox? What are you using for fuel?"​

The GM seeking more information from the players before assenting to their suggestion that a certain sort of craft-y or creation-y outcome is part of the fiction is very, very common in D&D play.

This is a good example of what Baker means by "negotiation" - as was the example above. Both should make clear that said "negotiation" is not in conflict with overriding up-front promises. Perhaps it could be better described by a word like "application".

Here's another:

A player says, "My magic-user wants to research a spell that will let us track the location of the <whatever>." And so the GM pulls out the rules chapter on spell research, and the player and GM start to work out what the PC has to do to research this spell.​

Here's another:

The group are resolving a combat. A player says "I attack the Hobgoblin!" The GM replies "How do you do that? You've just finished killing the Bugbear, and the Hobgoblin is on the other side of the room from where the two of you were fighting?" "OK, I move across the room first. Can I do that without being attacked by the giant ape on the way?"​

And another:

The GM tells the players that their PCs come to a dead-end room, with a ceiling about 20' high. The player of the Half-Orc barbarian says "The Halfling gets up on my shoulders and starts tapping the walls as high up as she can to see if they're hollow." The GM asks, "OK, what's your DEX? Is either of you trained in Acrobatics?" And the player responds, "Redgar" - the human fighter with 18 STR and 16 DEX - "joins us, so that Redgar and I are really stable with arms around one another's shoulders and the Halfling stands on both of us." And so the conversation goes on . . .​

That last one is inspired by Gygax's example of play in his DMG.

As these examples illustrate, and as I hope is reinforced by the myriad other possible examples that they bring to mind, coming to agreement on what is happening in the fiction is at the core of D&D game play.

I would just slightly modify this to say that we come to agreements in the moment only to the extent that doubt exists. There are plenty of things we don't come to agreement on. For example

GM "Roll a d6"
Player, rolling "5"
GM "Nope, I'm calling that a 2"
Players "Huh?"

No one expects moment to moment agreement as to the number plainly visible on a thrown die.... but what if it were cocked? how did we decide to call for that roll in the first place? and what would a 5 (or 2!) be interpreted to mean?

 

[clearstream]

It doesn’t matter or rather; shouldn’t.

The only reason I offered my input on the topic is the same reason I offer my input on “writers’ room.”

It’s to dispel a false notion of both process and purpose.

(I) Navigating/traversing/negotiating (whatever) a continual series of inputs into gamestate/shared imagination (ii) that might be at some level of odds (iii) via structure, authority distribution, and amicable conversation (all in the service of content generation/benign update of play space) is not the same as the specific conception of a game-bogging, adversarial, offer > counteroffer > deal struck or mediator with full authority declaring “what is” (in the service of settling a fraught question of “who gets what”) that I detected was emerging.

I just wanted to dispel a specific, incorrect conception before that cake got baked. Cost me all of two minutes. It wasn’t worth the small cost (probably never is).

To me it felt worth your pointing that out. We don't "negotiate" that a bison-hair cloak costs 3 lunars in New Pavis (unless we diegetically haggle!) Nor that a 7 result on the Balazar weather table means today is hot, clear, no rain. Nor do we necessarily hold a debate about whether to retcon Alert in an encounter with Ogres... much of the time GM just offers a correction and the group runs with it.

As you say, we have "structure, authority distribution, and amicable conversation". Up-front we made varying internal commitments to structure, authority distribution, and amicability. Those can change any time new information arises. They're "strong" in the sense that not simply any new information compels in the moment querying, new proposals, renegotiaton, or agreement. Only some sorts of new information do.

To see something about those sorts, it's easy enough to set up tables whose results require less or more filling in of details, while putting less or more at stake. One can predict that tables whose results require more filling in of details while putting more at stake will typically bring in-the-moment agreement to the forefront, while those whose results are sufficiently detailed and put nothing at stake will typically be covered by prior overriding agreements.

Per my d6 roll result example above, possibly this is just a comment on the strength of norms. Few need to reach in-the-moment agreement about the number plainly showing on a rolled d6. Honestly, I feel in various posts, taken together (and discounting misteps that are rather endemic to forum conversation) we've sketched out pretty well what's going on.