RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[pemerton]

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.

I think that one of Baker's points is that the structure of GM-controlled character vs player-controlled character combat looks like this, in a lot of RPGs.

And another of his points is that this is precisely where we see rules "easing and constraining" how the process of settling on a shared imagination unfolds.

 

[pemerton]

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?

There is a back-and-forth here: the GM asks where is PCFR?. The player of that PC gives a conditional answer. The GM fills in the condition and so the question of what everyone should imagine is now resolved - everyone should imagine FRPC is warming themself by the hot coals in the fireplace.

This is an example close to Baker's first version of the Orc, as the content of the shared fiction is established by each party deferring to the "owner" of particular stuff: the player owns their PC; while the GM owns the scenery, including the fireplace.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Agreed. I think negotiation and suggestion are words much better suited to describing blades in the dark play than d&d play. There’s no need to stretch definitions for blades in the dark as it explicitly advocates actual negotiation as part of the action resolution framework. It encourages the players to offer suggestions for the fiction the GM is generating and for the GM to take into account their suggestions. It explicitly encourages the GM to solicit the players for suggestions.

That said there are times when what I’m calling the first order agreement either doesn’t cover a situation (not likely with universal mechanics like skill checks) or there is a fundamental disagreement around what the first order agreement said. And yet d&d even accounts for those by making the dm the final day in settling such disagreements and deciding how to resolve any situation not covered in the first order agreement.

 

[FrogReaver]

There is a back-and-forth here: the GM asks where is PCFR?. The player of that PC gives a conditional answer. The GM fills in the condition and so the question of what everyone should imagine is now resolved - everyone should imagine FRPC is warming themself by the hot coals in the fireplace.

This is an example close to Baker's first version of the Orc, as the content of the shared fiction is established by each party deferring to the "owner" of particular stuff: the player owns their PC; while the GM owns the scenery, including the fireplace.

Call it what you want. I wouldn’t call that a back and forth. (Edit- this part sounds short and possibly a bit hostile, that’s not my intent. I simply mean let’s agree to disagree here. Like I can even understand what you say you mean by that phrase, I just cannot understand why that’s the phrase that was chosen to mean that. Which for me makes for a pretty big hang up.)

Maybe you can answer this for me, why are the words you and baker are choosing to explain this concept, words that always connote to active disagreement? Is that just a coincidence, or is there something to that?

 

[FrogReaver]

@clearstream

I think part of my problem is that Bakerian language fights me at every turn. It’s never just using one or two words differently than I would. That gap I think could easily be bridged. Instead it’s like every concept cited by him is using language that I wouldn’t. Couple that with @pemertons reluctance to explain the concepts in other terms and it suggests something larger is at stake by these word choices.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Agree but I’d add, it’s also a bit more than semantics. i think there’s a reason ‘system say’ tends to be rejected by bakerians while readily accepted as a better descriptor by primary d&d players. It’s about what is being emphasized IMO.

Negotiation and suggestion seem to be similar.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Id push back just a little here. I think most players want to do what the rules say. In general they wouldn’t prefer the rule to be different just to avoid the negative outcome. As such saying the player doesn’t want to consent to that seems a very strong statement that doesn’t really capture what’s going on. I mean if they didn’t want to consent to that then they wouldn’t. That said, I don’t have a suggestion for a better way of saying what I think you are trying to get at.

As I've said in the past, agreement to follow a rule never resides in that rule.

100% agreed here.

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.

I think there’s a huge difference in saying, consent can be withdrawn at any moment and consent is being given at every moment.

Also, I think pbta mechanics explicitly build negotiation into them, so maybe not the best example to cite of negotiation occurring outside the rules.

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

In pemertons defense, that wasn’t obvious to me either.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Agreed. I think negotiation and suggestion are words much better suited to describing blades in the dark play than d&d play. There’s no need to stretch definitions for blades in the dark as it explicitly advocates actual negotiation as part of the action resolution framework. It encourages the players to offer suggestions for the fiction the GM is generating and for the GM to take into account their suggestions. It explicitly encourages the GM to solicit the players for suggestions.

Right. This is what was earlier (in this thread or some other) referred as "writer's room" and some people took exception to that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right. This is what was earlier (in this thread or some other) referred as "writer's room" and some people took exception to that.

I’d assume because of the connotations that would have with story games as opposed to RPG’s.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Sure they do. Even if there's a 95+% chance of a suggestion being rejected, which to me counts as "good reason to believe [it] won't be taken up", some people (and I'm one of them, sometimes) will throw it out there anyway, just in case that 5% comes through this time.