RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Crimson Longinus]

Why is opening a bakery always the example? I can't even think of any examples of games where the characters even visited a bakery, let alone opened one.

It was the example because on of the characters in my game took a chef feat and bakes delicious wormcakes for the party, so it wouldn't be an utterly outlandish career move for them.

I think there's a difference between something as outlandish as that and just something like two characters with different goals that become increasingly further apart. Or even something more short term, but immediate... do we go after the assassin who killed Rolf's brother, or do we look into this necromancer?

So presumably this again is something the characters can discuss among themselves in the game? But sure in theory characters could decide to go on their separate ways, so then the players and the GM would need to decide how to continue the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That has been debated in length, but I already grew bored to that discussion.

Right. But the thing is that I claim that a campaign can be rather player driven even if players can influence it mainly just via their characters. And how much influence like this can manifest can vary. Sure in almost every game players have control of their characters, but how much they can actually affect the course of the campaign may in practice be limited by various factors. Like in an adventure path the players are in control of their characters, but the direction of the game is still relatively linear so it is not very player driven.

Yes, exactly... that's why I asked the question the way I did.

Those differences from group to group... where do they come from? I would think from the negotiation that each group has about how play will go.

"We're gonna play PHB only and no evil alignments" or "We're playing Storm King's Thunder... please make characters that are interested in facing the threat of the giants". These are negotiations.

Sure.

Yes, such discussions can be had, I just would prefer it to be after or before the actual game, if possible, as I'd like to keep the game itself focused on the perspective of the characters.

I'm less concerned with when they happen so much that they do happen.

Sure. And of course whether we incorporate some third party rules content in the game obviously is subject to GM approval.

It is not that I am less likely to listen, but I just prefer playing the game over talking about the game. And we can talk about it with Bill before the game, but obviously in the setting it still is Rolf who needs to make it happen.

It was the example because on of the characters in my game took a chef feat and bakes delicious wormcakes for the party, so it wouldn't be an utterly outlandish career move for them.

So presumably this again is something the characters can discuss among themselves in the game? But sure in theory characters could decide to go on their separate ways, so then the players and the GM would need to decide how to continue the game.

All of these sound like examples of negotiation.

I'm less interested in the label than the fact that this kind of need for agreement is inherent and ongoing in an RPG. It may not always be obvious... but it's pretty much ubiquitous.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, exactly... that's why I asked the question the way I did.

Those differences from group to group... where do they come from? I would think from the negotiation that each group has about how play will go.

It comes from how the GM runs the game.

"We're gonna play PHB only and no evil alignments" or "We're playing Storm King's Thunder... please make characters that are interested in facing the threat of the giants". These are negotiations.

Yes, one could negotiate this before the game starts, and I think that is a good idea. But alternatively the GM might just decide to run the game certain way and they players go along with it.

All of these sound like examples of negotiation.

I'm less interested in the label than the fact that this kind of need for agreement is inherent and ongoing in an RPG. It may not always be obvious... but it's pretty much ubiquitous.

But they do not happen during the game, except when the characters are literally negotiating with each other! Session zero and after game chat are not part of playing the game. Contention was about negotiation being a central part of the gameplay.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It comes from how the GM runs the game.


Yes, one could negotiate this before the game starts, and I think that is a good idea. But alternatively the GM might just decide to run the game certain way and they players go along with it.

Or they don’t go along with it. The game happens if the participants agree.

But they do not happen during the game, except when the characters are literally negotiating with each other! Session zero and after game chat are not part of playing the game. Contention was about negotiation being a central part of the gameplay.

I think the characters negotiating is one element of it, yeah, but I don’t think that’s the only time it happens. I’ve certainly made a decision as a player not out of the interests of my character but instead about the interests of the play group. That’s one of the necessities of group based play… you have to keep the group together.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Or they don’t go along with it. The game happens if the participants agree.

"Agree" is doing some heavy lifting here. I'd rephrased it as "the game doesn't happen if enough of the participants disagree", because there are a lot of cases where that's what required--active assertive disagreement--or people just go along either because its their extent gaming group and only one person wants to run, or its, effectively, the only game in town. A lot of games get run where people might well prefer to not play a particular campaign, but they're rather do so than buck the group trend or not play at all.

 

[Lanefan]

In D&D the players are in charge of their characters, the GM is in control of the rest. That's how the game works. Having control of the main characters of the fiction is a lot of control, especially if there is not some "adventure path" or "main plot" the GM is trying to get the characters to follow.

To expand on this a bit:

When I see the term "negotiation" my first thought is a meta-discussion, e.g. starting with something like:

Player A: "Ms GM, can our next adventure be in the arctic or somewhere cold, as a change of pace?"
Player B: "Yeah, we've been in the desert for three adventures straight now. Getting to be old hat."
GM: "Well, that'll take some serious jiggering; I can't tell you the details, but you're by no means finished the desert series yet."
...

And what follows is likely a negotiation at the meta level.

As opposed to:

Player A (as Jerelle): "I'm getting tired of this hot desert; I'm looking for a ship heading for somewhere cold."
Player B (as Terrafore): "Good plan! You check the shipping agents, I'll check at the docks. Meet you back here in two hours."
GM: [???]

What the GM says next here is very, very telling.

If she simply determines (and maybe roleplays) and narrates the results of these actions there's no negotiation; instead she's simply hitting the curveball her players just threw at her (which, IMO, is just what she should do) and the game rolls on. But if she says something like "No, you're not going north yet!" and shuts that series of actions down there's also no negotiation, but she has just wrenched the conversation from an in-game footing to an out-of-game footing.

 

[Lanefan]

How does having control of the characters make the game player driven? Is the DM obligated to honor any and all decisions the players make?

Ideally, yes.

When they veer radically away from what's already going on, is the DM expected to handle that on the fly?

Yes.

Does he need to stop the session so he can then prepare what will happen after the shift?

If handling it on the fly works, there should be no need for this.

Do the players have a say about what the game is about prior to play beginning?

In terms of setting, rules, classes-species availble, etc? Generally no. Their options are to accept or decline an invitation into the game.

During play?

As per the above "yes" answers, yes.

If I'm talking about the game as a game... what the participants can do... then there is no "meta".

If you're talking about the game as a game, from an external point of view, then the entire discussion is meta.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, there's a lot more subtle ways to block that if that's what the GM wants to do. The easiest is "shipping heading out to those areas are never here at this port/this time of year." The players can still get soggy about it, but its a lot less blunt object.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Terms like "stranglehold" exemplify the tone that prompted me to not respond to @hawkeyefan's earlier. They negatively characterise the experience of play many enjoy in the mode under discussion.

I won't be sucked into this sort of pointless false characterization. Such attempts to kill discussion simply won't work.

Surely an accusation that can cut both ways!

Really? I dispute that notion! I mean, the same people whom I now run narrativst/story now type games for/with are largely the same people I played AD&D with years back. I can't say there's 100% overlap due to random life happenings, but its been pretty consistent that people find the 'new way' fun and engaging when it is presented in a positive way. In fact some of those people even voiced negative opinions on the subject before playing. ALL of them kept playing! I think in all my games in the last 10 years I've only had one person drop out because of what I would consider a difference in ideas about how to play. That guy was a random pickup player in my 4e campaign. So, evidence says older and 'old school' players mostly are fine with either type of play, but there are a few people who don't like one or the other.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

BitD has scene setting processes that outright demand explicit negotiation. For example, the Devil's Bargain.

Picture a player continually explicitly negotiating every Ability Check modifier set by their referee in OSE. In common approaches to play that could well feel disruptive. It's not demanded or advocated as part of following those rules, under which players enjoy a flow of play facilitated by tacit agreements in place up front. That doesn't mean there is never a moment of overt negotiation, nor does it deny that agreements are implicit in every act of play.

I agree that modern RPG designers are generally aware of the relationship of rules to agreements, without that meaning they always design for overt moment-to-moment negotiation. They're also aware of what they can achieve by making erstwhile unspoken up-front agreements, spoken.

I think each game design is unique in its approach to this. In PbtA games (of my familiarity, I'm sure there are variations) there isn't anything like 'negotiating a DC' at all! I mean, you could dispute with the GM as to which/any move has been triggered, though I don't see that a lot. Now and then a player might say "but maybe this other approach makes sense?" and I'm OK with calling that 'negotiation', but I haven't found it super prevalent in DW or Stonetop. It's more likely that negotiation in DW will happen in terms of what the fiction implies and 'how things are', which then indirectly leads to 'and then which moves will happen.' So, I don't think in my PbtA play I would normally see every check being negotiated.

OTOH in BitD the negotiation point is much more on the 'what fiction will arise from picking THIS ability vs THAT ability', though again I think the negotiating is much more centered on what fiction is going to arise, or what does the current fictional position impose in terms of 'blockers' or obstacles than on 'DCs' (in BitD that would be position and effect mostly, though it could also speak to how you can resist, etc.).

In both games a central nexus of negotiation, however, is "what generally is in the fiction?" It's narrower in BitD because Doskvol is a very nailed down environment in general terms. The possible things that can appear in Doskvol is limitless, but they will all clearly fall into its genre conventions, which are pretty strong. DW OTOH, or even more so AW, is less nailed down in this sense. You could have almost anything materialize as a threat in AW, space aliens, AI, zombies, grey goo, Saberhagian sentient atomic explosions, the sky is the limit there. The point being, the exact scope of that negotiation is, again, game specific, but the focus on overall high level goals and direction set by players is pretty consistent.

So, yes, and this is a point that is germane to the 'feel like you matter' thread, having such mechanisms as part of the game is highly significant! OSR type play doesn't have them, and thus attempting such is highly awkward. Its also an agenda bender I would say. There's nothing wrong with non-narrativist play, but it does distribute power differently at the table by virtue of NOT having certain types of rules. While this was simply happenstance in the 'old days' of '70s and early '80s D&D it is certainly very deliberate avoidance today.