RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[FrogReaver]

Well, if it's the agreement that's doing all the work, then I guess we don't need the rules!

(For some meaning of "agreement" and "rules", and possibly "constrain" and "ease".)

How do you get there from what I said?

 

[FrogReaver]

Who (other than you) has asserted that final clause?

Just for clarity, you mean: "therefore in order to reach that agreement we have to always be negotiating in the moment to moment"

Answer is below.

Here is what I assert (or, rather, what Vincent Baker asserted, and what I agree with):

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .​

​

(Plenty of suggestions at the game table don't get picked up by the group, or get revised and modified by the group before being accepted, all with the same range of time and attention spent negotiating.)​

​

So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

What you've quoted here seems to me to be saying the same thing as me, especially the bolded bits. Is there maybe some other piece of that you are taking issue with?

You seem to think that by pointing out examples of mechanics easing and/or constraining the social negotiation over what to imagine, you are contradicting this passage. But I don't know why you think that.

Ah, that's easy. I don't view what I'm quoting as examples of mechanics that are easing or constraining the social negotiation. If I had to summarize it would be:

• Starting point is the first order agreement by the group to play the game by the rules (along with any agreed upon houserules).
• Easing and constraining social agreement (avoiding the term negotiation) can only occur while a social agreement is in the process of being formed - as it wouldn't make any sense to ease or constrain after forming the agreement.
• Thus, by showing examples of mechanics that were agreed on by a previous social agreement, I am showing that those mechanics themselves aren't easing/constraining the social agreement.

It's almost like a cart before horse problem. How do we get the rules? Via social agreement! How can it be that the rules then ease and constrain our social agreement?

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

Also-
You have not. I made a faulty assumption that since you didn't object to @Manbearcat's use of traversal as the definition of negotiate that you were in agreement with that. I apologize for that. I guess I should ask, do you disagree with him on 'negotiate' meaning 'traverse'?

 

[FrogReaver]

I also think that you are not taking seriously the idea that much of play involves putting forward suggestions.

I don’t agree that the ‘suggestion’ explanatory model is good. I won’t call it completely incorrect, but I think there is a much better way to describe what’s happening.

IMO. It’s not about making a mere suggestion. If it was the players might say, oh, it should be a troll and this area should have a bridge for him to hide under. Etc. that doesn’t ever actually happen in the example scenario.

Instead the better model is that the dm is telling the players what will happen if they do nothing. And that caveat is very important. The players then have an opportunity to react, but whether that reaction happens before the event they are trying to react to is very much about a) the particulars of the fiction and b) when the dm calls for initiative.

Consider:

GM: "The Orcs rush towards you, attacking with their spears!​

​

Player: "I use my special reaction <refers to relevant rule> to cast a Wall of Force directly in front of the Orcs."​

​

GM: "Cool! They try to rush towards you, but run abruptly into your Wall. The wave their spears and curse at you from the other side of it."​

The above sort of thing is very common in D&D-ish FRPGing. And look at it's structure: the GM proposes something as the object of shared imagination - the Orcs rushing forward and attacking with their spears - and then the player counter-proposes - actually, the fiction includes the Orcs wanting to rush forward and attack with their spears, but being unable to because they were thwarted by the PC's rapid casting of a Wall of Force.

You can transform the statements to align with the suggestion concept. That doesn’t mean it’s a good explanatory model. As previously noted, one can suggest anything, but that model doesn’t explain why some types of suggestions are made and not others. Nor does it explain why some suggestions are accepted but not others.

The model I propose - the ‘this is about to happen but you can react model’ does have answers for these questions.

 

[pemerton]

As previously noted, one can suggest anything, but that model doesn’t explain why some types of suggestions are made and not others.

Seriously?

What do you think is meant by "easing and constraining negotiation"?

People don't make suggestions that they have good reason to believe won't be taken up.

Your idea that D&D play consists in agree to play by the rules, now go! is just not tenable. It can't explain the actual process of play the first time a player actually declares their PC performs an action, or the first time the players and GM have a back-and-forth discussion to work out where a PC is standing, or whether or not there is a chair in the kitchen, or whether or not the fireplace has hot coals in it.

Easing and constraining social agreement (avoiding the term negotiation) can only occur while a social agreement is in the process of being formed - as it wouldn't make any sense to ease or constrain after forming the agreement.

So how do you think, in D&D, we work out where a PC is in the corridor, or whether or not they're wearing the hat that is on their equipment list, or what happens when one PC tries to stand on the shoulders of another to reach up high?

None of these things is resolved by just applying the rules, unless by "rules" you include the participants discuss things back-and-forth until they arrive at a shared understanding of what is happening in the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

And to me "system's say" seems like perfectly coherent concept. Systems do provide information that then gets integrated to the shared fiction.

I don't understand this obsession about who speaks the information rather than where the information originated. The system provided information that according the rules needs to be incorporated into the shared fiction. Ergo, the system had a say.

So here are the general rules for Town Events, from the Torchbearer Scholar's Guide pp 101, 222 279:

Town events are provided to the game master to give settlements a sense of life. You can incorporate them into your adventures or leave them as background noise.

Keep track of events that happen in particular towns, so you can reincorporate them later. Name the townsfolk and log who the characters interact with. Doing so will enrich your world, giving it a sense of depth and time.

The individual town events leave a lot of room for interpretation. When something odd comes up, roll with it. It’s the game master’s job to call for tests or single out victims of calamity and sort through the chaos.

Some town events will provide a small benefit or penalty. Be sure to color these results so that they mesh with the current events of the campaign.​

And here is an example event, on the Remote Village table:

13 Stuck. The tinker’s cart is stuck in the mud. Heave it out using Laborer (Ob 5). If successful, the tinker offers a small reward. Roll on the Gear subtable or decline the reward and add a new friend. If you befriend the tinker and roll this result again, the tinker invites you to stay at their shack (flophouse) on the outskirts of the village.​

The roll of 13 at the appropriate point in play does not simply mean that certain fiction gets incorporated. The GM has to read the town event, think about how it fits into the existing situation, at the minimum give the tinker a name, and then frame the PCs into this situation, probably via narration along the lines of "As you approach the village, you see . . ." but maybe something a bit different from that "Through the blinding rain, you see a man coming toward you. When he sees you, he looks at you expectantly - "My cart is stuck in the mud back there. Can you help me out?"

The GM could even run this as a convince conflict, or a convince crowd conflict if the players decline in front of onlookers and the tinker wants to make them feel ashamed.

This is why I use the language of constraining and generating what the GM says about the fiction. But it is the GM who is doing the saying.

 

[FrogReaver]

Seriously?

What do you think is meant by "easing and constraining negotiation"?

People don't make suggestions that they have good reason to believe won't be taken up.

Your idea that D&D play consists in agree to play by the rules, now go! is just not tenable. It can't explain the actual process of play the first time a player actually declares their PC performs an action,

Please describe what's missing from the rules to handle a player declaring their PC jumps (or better phrased, tries to jump) over some obstacle the DM has described?

or the first time the players and GM have a back-and-forth discussion to work out where a PC is standing, or whether or not there is a chair in the kitchen, or whether or not the fireplace has hot coals in it.

DM: "the house contains a kitchen and a fireplace, etc etc, what is PC Frogreaver standing near in the house"
Frogreaver: "if the fireplace has hot coals in it then i'll be warming myself by the fire."
DM: "yea the fireplace has hot coals in it, so you are warming yourself by the fire."

There's no back and forth about those details. There is a discussion that includes the introduction of those details, but surely that's not what you are talking about?

So how do you think, in D&D, we work out where a PC is in the corridor, or whether or not they're wearing the hat that is on their equipment list, or what happens when one PC tries to stand on the shoulders of another to reach up high?

The DM asks the player what the PC is doing/wearing/etc. The player responds.

None of these things is resolved by just applying the rules, unless by "rules" you include the participants discuss things back-and-forth until they arrive at a shared understanding of what is happening in the fiction.

I wouldn't call it 'discussing things back and forth until they arrive at a shared understanding of what is happening'. Normally they are introducing details, either when asked or voluntarily, and the goal of doing that isn't for a shared understanding - it's to progress play forward. A shared understanding is essential - but that's arrived at not by this back and forth discussion, but by adhering to the rules, especially the ones around who gets to say what. As long as the right participant is saying something, then everyone imagines that. If there's some additional detail that's not been described yet but might be important to their next move, then the player or DM asks about that detail. That detail's existence or lack of existence is determined and then play progresses.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So here are the general rules for Town Events, from the Torchbearer Scholar's Guide pp 101, 222 279:

Town events are provided to the game master to give settlements a sense of life. You can incorporate them into your adventures or leave them as background noise.​

​

Keep track of events that happen in particular towns, so you can reincorporate them later. Name the townsfolk and log who the characters interact with. Doing so will enrich your world, giving it a sense of depth and time.​

​

The individual town events leave a lot of room for interpretation. When something odd comes up, roll with it. It’s the game master’s job to call for tests or single out victims of calamity and sort through the chaos.​

​

Some town events will provide a small benefit or penalty. Be sure to color these results so that they mesh with the current events of the campaign.​

And here is an example event, on the Remote Village table:

13 Stuck. The tinker’s cart is stuck in the mud. Heave it out using Laborer (Ob 5). If successful, the tinker offers a small reward. Roll on the Gear subtable or decline the reward and add a new friend. If you befriend the tinker and roll this result again, the tinker invites you to stay at their shack (flophouse) on the outskirts of the village.​

The roll of 13 at the appropriate point in play does not simply mean that certain fiction gets incorporated. The GM has to read the town event, think about how it fits into the existing situation, at the minimum give the tinker a name, and then frame the PCs into this situation, probably via narration along the lines of "As you approach the village, you see . . ." but maybe something a bit different from that "Through the blinding rain, you see a man coming toward you. When he sees you, he looks at you expectantly - "My cart is stuck in the mud back there. Can you help me out?"

The GM could even run this as a convince conflict, or a convince crowd conflict if the players decline in front of onlookers and the tinker wants to make them feel ashamed.

This is why I use the language of constraining and generating what the GM says about the fiction. But it is the GM who is doing the saying.

You can phrase it that way, but it is just semantics. "System's say" remains coherent way of describing this as well.

Negotiation thing is semantics as well. You can describe the process as such, but to me it, and Baker's examples, connote greater level of disagreement at the table than I believe there generally exists, so I wouldn't use that word.

 

[clearstream]

I don't see why you think pointing to circumstances where negotiation has been eased and/or constrained by the application and following of system (including mechanics) is a counter-example to a point which, as quoted just above, stats that such easing and/or constraining is the purpose of having a system.

I also think that you are not taking seriously the idea that much of play involves putting forward suggestions.

Consider:

GM: "The Orcs rush towards you, attacking with their spears!​

​

Player: "I use my special reaction <refers to relevant rule> to cast a Wall of Force directly in front of the Orcs."​

​

GM: "Cool! They try to rush towards you, but run abruptly into your Wall. The wave their spears and curse at you from the other side of it."​

I don't see my comments as counter-examples, exactly. Looking at the example

GM: "The Orcs rush towards you, attacking with their spears!​

​

Player: "I use my special reaction <refers to relevant rule> to cast a Wall of Force directly in front of the Orcs."​

I take that second line to represent the sort of "negotiation" Baker is thinking of, because it proposes an amendment to the orcs rush forward. What I'm pointing out is that the word "negotiation" can lead folk to think that there should be some negotiating. What we see is a series of complementary proposals, which are very often accepted without any negotiating. What might "negotiating" look like

Player: "What, really? Spears? That detail looks wrong to me. How about making it axes?​

​

This would be a suspension of consent, and presumably a resumption if the GM consented to axes. The original doesn't seem like any consent is lost and reaffirmed even though the "rush" is going to be amended to a "run abruptly into your Wall". It feels like the orcs still got to rush and then they ran into that wall. Nothing was taken back or amended, really. Instead, proposals were made in series under a continuation of consent. Again, I do not say that "negotiating" strictly speaking requires taking back or amending. It can include conceding an addition (like the Wall) just as well.

To me this isn't a major point. Some have felt reluctant to get too much into semantics. I've many times now observed folk resisting Baker's framing. Not because what he describes is incorrect, but because the words he uses to describe it suggest something that frequently isn't observed in play. They suggest active concepts that are live in each moment - negotiating, consenting - rather than what you described. In the past I have put "<refers to relevant rule>" as an exercise of fiat or leverage over the fiction. Given I have a right of appeal to the rule recorded on my character sheet, that rule bestows a fiat over the ongoing fiction: I can submit a draft that suits me in the way the rule outlines.

​

GM: "Cool! They try to rush towards you, but run abruptly into your Wall. The wave their spears and curse at you from the other side of it."​

[A​

It's not exactly wrong to call this negotiation, but seeing as many times folk have resisted that term as a good description of their play and that a central purpose of language is to communicate, it is semantically problematic. We can say - it's a technical matter and it's best to keep the term for its technical merit - i.e. just call it out as jargon. Or we can search for alternative ways to describe it, that more folk will find intuitively matches their play. I'm not deeply invested in either route... I just find it interesting to discuss.

The above sort of thing is very common in D&D-ish FRPGing. And look at it's structure: the GM proposes something as the object of shared imagination - the Orcs rushing forward and attacking with their spears - and then the player counter-proposes - actually, the fiction includes the Orcs wanting to rush forward and attack with their spears, but being unable to because they were thwarted by the PC's rapid casting of a Wall of Force.

This is also an example of mechanics easing and constraining negotiation over what to imagine together.

And of course Baker gives his own example:

So you're sitting at the table and one player says, "[let's imagine that] an orc jumps out of the underbrush!"​

​

What has to happen before the group agrees that, indeed, an orc jumps out of the underbrush? . . .​

​

sometimes, lots of mechanics and negotiation. Debate the likelihood of a lone orc in the underbrush way out here, make a having-an-orc-show-up roll, a having-an-orc-hide-in-the-underbrush roll, a having-the-orc-jump-out roll, argue about the modifiers for each of the rolls, get into a philosophical thing about the rules' modeling of orc-jump-out likelihood... all to establish one little thing. Wave a stick in a game store and every game you knock of the shelves will have a combat system that works like this.​

It's not all that common to have such structured and mechanically-mediated negotiation for having Orcs jump out of the underbrush, but it's extremely common (as Baker notes) to have combat in a FPRG work like this.

A good example to my mind is where we actually make a roll.

Orc Player: I want to dispel the Wall.​

Player: No way, the Wall stays!​

GM: Okay Orcs, cross off a Dispel spell and roll against 10+ the casting level of the wall.​

The advocate for the orcs might like to just say that the wall is gone. Poof, dispelled. But someone else at the table doesn't want that. This looks a lot like what I think folk have in mind when they use words like "negotiate". The player isn't willing to just consent to their Wall being gone. They challenge that. The group have agreed to let mechanics and dice settle such disputes.

Orc Player: Darn, a 6, I guess the Wall stays.​

The orc player didn't want to consent to the Wall, but in this moment following the rules means doing so. One can see that this relies on an overriding agreement to follow the rules. As I've said in the past, agreement to follow a rule never resides in that rule.

If you watch video of Baker running Apocalypse World actual play in "How We Role", you'll see why I added an orc player to the example. Baker sets up situations where players are in conflict with one another. They'll use the PbtA mechanics to negotiate and come to agreement in each moment of conflict. It visibly demonstrates what Baker is talking about, and shows that even if in some modes of play a continuation of an initial consent may come closer to what folk feel is happening, it can just as well be observed as an elision of stuff going on under the hood; that is brought out into the harsh daylight in AW play. In considering ongoing consent, you must picture scenarios where that consent could fail. In doing so, you see that the assumption of agreement, and at various times active carriage of it, is crucial.

My attempts to tune and rephrase Baker's general observation are not counter-examples. I hope that is clear.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't see my comments as counter-examples, exactly. Looking at the example

GM: "The Orcs rush towards you, attacking with their spears!​

​

Player: "I use my special reaction <refers to relevant rule> to cast a Wall of Force directly in front of the Orcs."​

I take that second line to represent the sort of "negotiation" Baker is thinking of, because it proposes an amendment to the orcs rush forward. What I'm pointing out is that the word "negotiation" can lead folk to think that there should be some negotiating. What we see is a series of complementary proposals, which are very often accepted without any negotiating. What might "negotiating" look like

Player: "What, really? Spears? That detail looks wrong to me. How about making it axes?​

​

This would be a suspension of consent, and presumably a resumption if the GM consented to axes. The original doesn't seem like any consent is lost and reaffirmed even though the "rush" is going to be amended to a "run abruptly into your Wall". It feels like the orcs still got to rush and then they ran into that wall. Nothing was taken back or amended, really. Instead, proposals were made in series under a continuation of consent. Again, I do not say that "negotiating" strictly speaking requires taking back or amending. It can include conceding an addition (like the Wall) just as well.

To me this isn't a major point. Some have felt reluctant to get too much into semantics. I've many times now observed folk resisting Baker's framing. Not because what he describes is incorrect, but because the words he uses to describe it suggest something that frequently isn't observed in play. They suggest active concepts that are live in each moment - negotiating, consenting - rather than what you described. In the past I have put "<refers to relevant rule>" as an exercise of fiat or leverage over the fiction. Given I have a right of appeal to the rule recorded on my character sheet, that rule bestows a fiat over the ongoing fiction: I can submit a draft that suits me in the way the rule outlines.

​

GM: "Cool! They try to rush towards you, but run abruptly into your Wall. The wave their spears and curse at you from the other side of it."​

[A​

It's not exactly wrong to call this negotiation, but seeing as many times folk have resisted that term as a good description of their play and that a central purpose of language is to communicate, it is semantically problematic. We can say - it's a technical matter and it's best to keep the term for its technical merit - i.e. just call it out as jargon. Or we can search for alternative ways to describe it, that more folk will find intuitively matches their play. I'm not deeply invested in either route... I just find it interesting to discuss.

Yes, exactly!

A good example to my mind is where we actually make a roll.

Orc Player: I want to dispel the Wall.​

Player: No way, the Wall stays!​

GM: Okay Orcs, cross off a Dispel spell and roll against 10+ the casting level of the wall.​

The advocate for the orcs might like to just say that the wall is gone. Poof, dispelled. But someone else at the table doesn't want that. This looks a lot like what I think folk have in mind when they use words like "negotiate". The player isn't willing to just consent to their Wall being gone. They challenge that. The group have agreed to let mechanics and dice settle such disputes.

Orc Player: Darn, a 6, I guess the Wall stays.​

The orc player didn't want to consent to the Wall, but in this moment following the rules means doing so. One can see that this relies on an overriding agreement to follow the rules. As I've said in the past, agreement to follow a rule never resides in that rule.

If you watch video of Baker running Apocalypse World actual play in "This is How We Roll", you'll see why I added an orc player to the example. Baker sets up situations where players are in conflict with one another. They'll use the PbtA mechanics to negotiate and come to agreement in each moment of conflict. It visibly demonstrates what Baker is talking about, and shows that even if in some modes of play a continuation of an initial consent may come closer to what folk feel is happening, it can just as well be observed as an elision of stuff going on under the hood; that is brought out into the harsh daylight in AW play. In considering ongoing consent, you must picture scenarios where that consent could fail. In doing so, you see that the assumption of agreement, and at various times active carriage of it, is crucial.

My attempts to tune and rephrase Baker's general observation are not counter-examples. I hope that is clear.

However, I'd like to point out that in many games the rules would be invoked regardless of whether there was a "disagreement." It simply is that that in the fiction such an action is declared which obviously invokes a rule, so rules are used. For example in D&D it would generally be immaterial whether the participants think a dispel should automatically get rid of wall of force or not. It is a question the rules will answer regardless.

 

[clearstream]

However, I'd like to point out that in many games the rules would be invoked regardless of whether there was a "disagreement." It simply is that that in the fiction such an action is declared which obviously invokes a rule, so rules are used. For example in D&D it would generally be immaterial whether the participants think a dispel should automatically get rid of wall of force or not. It is a question the rules will answer regardless.

That's true, and Baker relishes the sort of play where it's high-noon and emotions run hot. We're forced to say things we don't want to say. You can see that if that sort of play is one's goal, then agreement and consent are as I put it, brought out into the harsh daylight. Because we often hit times we don't want to agree, or player interests are at odds.

@FrogReaver drawing your attention to differing modes of play. Words like negotiation, agreement and consent are more apt to some than others.