RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[pemerton]

Picturing discussion

Player 1: I want to get to the top of that wall, quietly​

GM: It's sheer and high enough to hurt if you fall, plus as you know there are guards: make a Dexterity (Athletics) check DC 12​

Player 1: rolls d20... 9+5... 14​

GM: No problem then, you're at the top looking into the compound...​

Avoiding digression into the type of resolution, in order to focus on "discussion" versus "negotiation", I see the agreement here as sustained and implicit. It doesn't feel like what I would call "negotiation."

This is a paradigm of what Vincent Baker means by "negotiated imagination" - the player's desire for the fiction is I (as my PC) am on top of the wall, the GM's conception of the fiction is You (as your PC) may not make it, given it's a sheer high wall with guards about it. So those two competing conceptions of the fiction need to be resolved an integrated somehow.

To ease and constrain the negotiation, the participants use a rule, which can be summarised as having three steps: the GM establishes a target number that the player must roll, and identifies what part of the PC sheet the player can draw on in resolving that roll and then the player makers the roll, draws on the appropriate part of their sheet - ie the bit labelled Dexterity (Athletics) - to modify the roll and then the GM says what happens next.

I don't really care what you and @Crimson Longinus think about the aptness of Baker's use of the word "negotiation", although to me it seems rather apt. The point is that (i) the participants propose their various conceptions of the fiction, and (ii) these have to be reconciled, resolved and integrated, and (iii) one way to do this is simply by talking it out (as might happen in a free roleplaying online game), but (iv) RPGs often use mechanics and the rules around them to ease and constrain the negotiation by establishing certain structures, authorities, etc around who gets to say what when about the shared fiction.

Does anyone disagree with the actual point?

 

[pemerton]

I see the negotiation transpiring when the PC declares their intent and the GM frames the fiction and set the DC. This is to say, step 1 in the negotiation here is when the player declares their intent in the fiction. Then in step 2 of the process, the GM is offering their understanding of the fiction to the player along with caveats or potential consequences. This is the point where the player and GM would potentially further negotiate their understanding of the fiction: i.e., before the roll. Maybe there would be further discussion or arbitration about the climbing surface, the guards, or the consequences of falling.

The fact that they don't implies to me that the player accepts the GM's framing of the fiction or they don't see any potential rough spots that may need to be hammered out between them. So step 3, an agreement is reached. The negotiation resolved and concluded. The player picks up the dice and rolls. That would be the point where the player signs the dotted line of the contract.

Vincent Baker gives an example of this in his blog:

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

1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters are wearing or thinking.​

So - and here I think @Aldarc and I are in agreement, or near enough to agreement - I don't see how @clearstream is supposed to be showing that Baker is wrong, when all he is doing is recapitulating an example that Baker gives to illustrate his point.

 

[pemerton]

The unique (and imagination driven) aspect of TTRPGs is that the board or game state doesn't exist in objectively verifiable form that can be referenced by all the participants. The traditional conception is that one party (the GM) is responsible for maintaining that board state

The following quote is from Gygax's DMG, published in 1979, p 93, under the heading "Territory Development by Player Characters":

Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place where he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a rive. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so.​

In other words, within the first 5 years of what is now a 50 year old hobby, one of its founders had worked that, in practical terms, the GM cannot maintain the "board state" in a manner that is comparable to a game of chess (be that ordinary chess or blindfold chess).

Or consider this, from Classic Traveller (1977, so within 3 years of the publication of the original D&D game) - the rule for the Streetwise skill (Book 1, p 15):

The referee should set the throw required to obtain any item specified by the players (for example, the name of an official willing to issue licenses without hassle = 5+, the location of high quality guns at a low price = 9+). DMs based on streetwise should be allowed at +1 per level. No expertise DM =-5.​

The same page also states the fictional context that underpins this rule:

The individual [with Streetwise skill] is acquainted with the ways of local subcultures (which tend to be the same everywhere in human society), and thus is capable of dealing with strangers without alienating them. (This is not to be considered the same as alien contact, although the referee may so allow.)

Close-knit sub-cultures (such as some portions of the lower classes, and trade groups such as workers, the underworld, etc) generally reject contact with strangers or unknown elements. Streetwise expertise allows contact for the purposes of obtaining information, hiring persons, purchasing contraband or stolen goods, etc.​

These designers had worked out (i) that what drives the play of these games, and makes them distinctive, is the role of shared fiction, and (ii) that the players will always come up with ideas about what the fiction might (or might not) include which cannot simply be read off the GM's map-and-key.

And that's before we even get to action resolution which takes the setting and its elements as fixed, but still requires reconciliation of the player's and the GM's proposals as to what might happen next (such as the example of climbing the wall).

 

[pemerton]

A lot of times, there's little need for any back and forth. The GM presents a situation, the player says what their character does, and the GM narrates what happens next... the default state, which is essentially negotiated before play.

I just quoted Baker discussing just this, using the notion of ownership of some part of the fiction to explain why there is little "friction":

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?

1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters are wearing or thinking.​

But whenever things don't go this smoothly, and discussion happens to make sure everyone is on the same page, then the negotiation becomes more involved, with more back and forth until everything is agreed upon or accepted.

Baker gives two examples of this, one which relies on unmediated negotiation and "social contract", and another which relies on mechanics to ease and constrain the process of negotiation:

2. Sometimes, a little bit more. "Really? An orc?" "Yeppers." "Huh, an orc. Well, okay." Sometimes the suggesting participant has to defend the suggestion: "Really, an orc this far into Elfland?" "Yeah, cuz this thing about her tribe..." "Okay, I guess that makes sense."

3. Sometimes, mechanics. "An orc? Only if you make your having-an-orc-show-up roll. Throw down!" "Rawk! 57!" "Dude, orc it is!" The thing to notice here is that the mechanics serve the exact same purpose as the explanation about this thing about her tribe in point 2, which is to establish your credibility wrt the orc in question.​

We can imagine that, this far into Elfland, a penalty applies to the having-an-Orc-show-up roll.

And of course, Baker points out that there are some part of some RPGs that deliberately structure the decision as to what we all agree to imagine happening next through an intricate system of mechanics:

4. And 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.​

I gave an example upthread of where even these mechanically dense systems can require "raw" negotiation, namely, establishing where exactly my PC is on this side of the room such that I can work out whether or not I can get to the other side of the room without drawing an attack of opportunity.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't really care what you and @Crimson Longinus think about the aptness of Baker's use of the word "negotiation"

Mod Note:

Stuff like this- even buried in a long post- can raise hackles and ruffle feathers. Not good for the ENWorld zoo, if you catch my drift.

Lets be better, going forward.

 

[clearstream]

This is a paradigm of what Vincent Baker means by "negotiated imagination" - the player's desire for the fiction is I (as my PC) am on top of the wall, the GM's conception of the fiction is You (as your PC) may not make it, given it's a sheer high wall with guards about it. So those two competing conceptions of the fiction need to be resolved an integrated somehow.

I didn't picture the GM in the assumed mode of play (trad, neo-trad or OSR) as having any opinion on the character being at the top of the wall. They're not proposing an alternative version of the fiction, they're telling it like it is. Perhaps that helps tease out something beyond semantics: the idea that "competing concepts of the fiction need to be resolved". The concepts are not put in competion. In my example, GM does not negotiate on what player says their character says and does, and player does not negotiate on what GM describes, such as a sheer wall.

Possibly it is the assumption that there could be a negotiation - i.e. competing conceptions of the fiction that need to be resolved and integrated somehow - that drives resistance to the word? That in some modes of play, it is not supposed that drafts of the fiction compete, while in other modes of play it is supposed that they do. One way that can work is where authorities are strongly demarcated up-front. A good example being that Jo-player's drafts never compete with Addy-player on the subject of what Addy-character says or does, because Addy has ordinarily unchallengeable authority over their character.

To ease and constrain the negotiation, the participants use a rule, which can be summarised as having three steps: the GM establishes a target number that the player must roll, and identifies what part of the PC sheet the player can draw on in resolving that roll and then the player makers the roll, draws on the appropriate part of their sheet - ie the bit labelled Dexterity (Athletics) - to modify the roll and then the GM says what happens next.

I don't really care what you and @Crimson Longinus think about the aptness of Baker's use of the word "negotiation", although to me it seems rather apt. The point is that (i) the participants propose their various conceptions of the fiction, and (ii) these have to be reconciled, resolved and integrated, and (iii) one way to do this is simply by talking it out (as might happen in a free roleplaying online game), but (iv) RPGs often use mechanics and the rules around them to ease and constrain the negotiation by establishing certain structures, authorities, etc around who gets to say what when about the shared fiction.

Does anyone disagree with the actual point?

Possibly, see above. The idea of proposing various conceptions of the fiction that have to be reconciled seems related to fundamental assumptions that are prevalent in some modes of play and less so or absent in others.

 

[clearstream]

Vincent Baker gives an example of this in his blog:

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

​

1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters are wearing or thinking.​

So - and here I think @Aldarc and I are in agreement, or near enough to agreement - I don't see how @clearstream is supposed to be showing that Baker is wrong, when all he is doing is recapitulating an example that Baker gives to illustrate his point.

In this example, the smooth incorporation is down to up-front agreements. The right person said it at the right moment - where "right" was decided by up-front job descriptions and assignments. Agreement in advance isn't the same as negotiation in the moment. Baker goes on to list cases where agreement in advance might be disrupted and in such or similar cases - as I noted several times above - I concur that negotiation can arise.

I'm not aiming to prove Baker right or wrong, but to uncover whether apparently differing intuitions about "negotiation" hinge on semantics or are more substantive. In connection with that, I asked up-thread -

...what might amount to a difference is what job you think prelusory agreements are doing (e.g. cultural lusory norms, and game text principles and agenda)?

I'm curious how others would answer that? In conjunction with my post just prior to this one, I now see two candidates for what may drive substantive differences in intuitions.

 

[clearstream]

And that's before we even get to action resolution which takes the setting and its elements as fixed, but still requires reconciliation of the player's and the GM's proposals as to what might happen next (such as the example of climbing the wall).

In relation to my immediate previous, I wanted to draw attention to this. I take some modes of play to not treat what the GM says as "proposals". To break that out for further clarity

GM: there is a sheer wall here (not a proposal, a statement of fact)​

Player: my character will try to climb the wall (not a proposal, a statement of fact - the character will indeed try)​

There is no negotiation in the above. Each makes definitive statements on matters they have authority over. And for contrast

Player: my character will try to climb the wall​

GM: really? no, I do not think your character would try to climb the wall (treats player's statement as a proposal that can be declined)​

Most groups have in place up-front agreements hostile to the latter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is a paradigm of what Vincent Baker means by "negotiated imagination" - the player's desire for the fiction is I (as my PC) am on top of the wall, the GM's conception of the fiction is You (as your PC) may not make it, given it's a sheer high wall with guards about it. So those two competing conceptions of the fiction need to be resolved an integrated somehow.

To ease and constrain the negotiation, the participants use a rule, which can be summarised as having three steps: the GM establishes a target number that the player must roll, and identifies what part of the PC sheet the player can draw on in resolving that roll and then the player makers the roll, draws on the appropriate part of their sheet - ie the bit labelled Dexterity (Athletics) - to modify the roll and then the GM says what happens next.

I don't really care what you and @Crimson Longinus think about the aptness of Baker's use of the word "negotiation", although to me it seems rather apt. The point is that (i) the participants propose their various conceptions of the fiction, and (ii) these have to be reconciled, resolved and integrated, and (iii) one way to do this is simply by talking it out (as might happen in a free roleplaying online game), but (iv) RPGs often use mechanics and the rules around them to ease and constrain the negotiation by establishing certain structures, authorities, etc around who gets to say what when about the shared fiction.

Does anyone disagree with the actual point?

So what rubs me the wrong way in this is that it presents an conflict where one in my experience doesn't exist. Whilst the player probably would rather have their character so succeed than not,* they are not proposing that their character just end up on the top of the wall. They are fully onboard it being a non-trivial challenge with a change of failure, and thus evoking of the rules. So both the player and the GM are basically already on the same side with this, having the opinion you ascribe to the GM alone.

There are no competing proposals of fiction, at least not so that different people are advocating for different proposals. It is just that the fiction has arrived at a situation where uncertainty of success exists, so we evoke the rules to say what happens.

(* And even then the player actually doesn't want their character to succeed all the time, as that would make game more predictable and boring.)

 

[pemerton]

So what rubs me the wrong way in this is that it presents an conflict where one in my experience doesn't exist.

Conflict between whom? I didn't say anything about conflict. I talked about competing conceptions of the fiction.

Whilst the player probably would rather have their character so succeed than not,* they are not proposing that their character just end up on the top of the wall. They are fully onboard it being a non-trivial challenge with a change of failure, and thus evoking of the rules. So both the player and the GM are basically already on the same side with this, having the opinion you ascribe to the GM alone.

There are no competing proposals of fiction, at least not so that different people are advocating for different proposals. It is just that the fiction has arrived at a situation where uncertainty of success exists, so we evoke the rules to say what happens.

(* And even then the player actually doesn't want their character to succeed all the time, as that would make game more predictable and boring.)

But in 5e D&D isn't it open to the GM just to say "OK, although the wall is rather high and sheer, you make it up"? Or to put it another way, the player has no entitlement to insist on a check, as I understand it.

So the GM has to decide how to respond to the player's action declaration - to let it go through "unopposed", or to introduce a new possibility for the fiction (in this case, that the character fails to climb, or falls part way up).