RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[hawkeyefan]

You have the choice of assuming that's not true or assuming the other parties are being disingenuous. I know which one is likely to lead to a better conversation.

No other choices at all?

I mean, I don't think that anyone's really being disingenuous... but if those are the only options then I'd say that folks are being disagreeable more about the source of the idea rather than the content of the idea. That they're using a semantic argument to try and deny something that seems plainly true.

But... I prefer more options. I like to think those people are simply mistaken.

Because I really struggle to imagine how the process of play... which brings two or more parties into agreement... being described as a negotiation is in any way inaccurate when it's pretty much the definition of the word.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because I really struggle to imagine how the process of play... which brings two or more parties into agreement... being described as a negotiation is in any way inaccurate when it's pretty much the definition of the word.

Because it implies that there was a disagreement, yet there wasn't.

But besides that, I am not really getting what's the point of all this even is. Why it matter is we call it a negotiation? What sort of insight dues this offer to us? How does it help us run or design games better?

 

[clearstream]

Why is this troubling? It seems to me that having multiple approaches to TTRPG design would be desirable and that the push and pull between them would ultimately yield better games. It's typical in other fields to have multiple competing creative agendas operating simultaneously or near simultaneously, usually to the benefit of the field overall. Why not here?

That's how I see it. I acknowledge the potential discomforts as a fair price for what we gain.

But besides that, I am not really getting what's the point of all this even is. Why it matter is we call it a negotiation? What sort of insight dues this offer to us? How does it help us run or design games better?

As noted above, I believe calling it "negotiation" did help us run and design games better.

@hawkeyefan So, as I've said many times, my objection is a limited one, which is that there is not negotiation in every moment of roleplaying. Ergo there are moments of roleplaying in which there is no negotiation. Ergo also there are moments of roleplaying in which there is negotiation.

A few of your posts seem to have presented a similar view, and we'd possibly agree that even play free from negotiation in the moment may be eased/constrained by preexisting received or negotiated norms; or represent cases where negotiation is entirely superfluous.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it implies that there was a disagreement, yet there wasn't.

But besides that, I am not really getting what's the point of all this even is. Why it matter is we call it a negotiation? What sort of insight dues this offer to us? How does it help us run or design games better?

It seems there are two levels of disagreement going on. One is a semantic one about the word negotiation.

The second seems to deny that the description used by Baker is accurate.

I'm less concerned with the first than with the second, except at times when the two become entangled.

EDITED TO ADD:
So the objection to negotiation being used to describe the process of play seems to revolve around the idea that not every single thing we do when playing is strictly a negotiation. That Step B doesn't involve negotiation, therefore we're not always negotiating, therefore the label is inaccurate.

Which is just silly. Not everything we do when playing RPGs is roleplaying, yet we don't hesitate to apply that label. When I'm subtracting hit points from my total, I'm doing math, not roleplaying. Going by the logic being used to deny play is negotiation, it seems we need to find a new name for the hobby!

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan So, as I've said many times, my objection is a limited one, which is that there is not negotiation in every moment of roleplaying. Ergo there are moments of roleplaying in which there is no negotiation. Ergo also there are moments of roleplaying in which there is negotiation.

A few of your posts seem to have presented a similar view, and we'd possibly agree that even play free from negotiation in the moment may be eased/constrained by preexisting received or negotiated norms; or represent cases where negotiation is entirely superfluous.

But then you also said this:

If by easing/constraining one means obviating, then I'm in agreement!

Which I think is inaccurate. The rules can make the negotiation seamless, or they can make it more involved. I don't think that the rules remove the negotiation. Rather they are the means of negotiation.

Baker has it that participants are "suggesting things that might be true" (emphasis mine). I observe participants in some modes of play asserting what is true. Compelling some assertions is doing what the rules say to do.

I would simply look at these types of examples where the negotiation is eased. It's clear that what the participant is claiming is true because it fits within the scope of what that participant is allowed to do and when, per the agreed upon rules. There's no need for any further discussion at the moment of play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No other choices at all?

Not that I see.

I mean, I don't think that anyone's really being disingenuous... but if those are the only options then I'd say that folks are being disagreeable more about the source of the idea rather than the content of the idea. That they're using a semantic argument to try and deny something that seems plainly true.

I.e., "being disingenuous". For someone who is accusing others of using semantics to try not to engage with a term, looks a lot like what you're doing here to me.

But... I prefer more options. I like to think those people are simply mistaken.

At which point, they're genuinely not seeing how the word applies.

So, as I said.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not that I see.

I assume you mean that my claim that it’s obvious to all and that folks aren’t being disingenuous cannot both be true.

But yet when you remove the word negotiation… when we simply describe the process using other words… everyone seems to agree.

I.e., "being disingenuous". For someone who is accusing others of using semantics to try not to engage with a term, looks a lot like what you're doing here to me.

Yes, I was describing what I’d rather not believe of others, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps it’s true. I’m looking for some other explanation.

At which point, they're genuinely not seeing how the word applies.

So, as I said.

Do you think the word applies?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, I was describing what I’d rather not believe of others, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps it’s true. I’m looking for some other explanation.

please stop making this personal.

 

[hawkeyefan]

please stop making this personal.

I’m not! I’ve described how posts seem and I’m asking for a better interpretation than how they seem. I specifically said I don’t want to assume anyone is being disingenuous.

I’m trying to figure out what else it could be.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I assume you mean that my claim that it’s obvious to all and that folks aren’t being disingenuous cannot both be true.

No, I mean that there's more than two ways to read your response when stripped down. People are either sincerely not understanding why what you're talking about is negotiation or they are insincere. There may be variations within each of those, but I see no true third case.

But yet when you remove the word negotiation… when we simply describe the process using other words… everyone seems to agree.

Probably because the word has other implications to them you're not talking about.

Yes, I was describing what I’d rather not believe of others, despite evidence to the contrary. Perhaps it’s true. I’m looking for some other explanation.

Well, part of it probably is that past posts by you have indicated you're less sensitive to word choice than many people in the first place. That's not going to help understanding why they're balking here.

Do you think the word applies?

Its not a perfect word for the process, but I believe I understand why you and some of the others have used it.