RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Pedantic]

It is not failed play for a player to ask "How slippery is the wall?" or "Can I get from A to B without taking an attack of opportunity?"

Nor to ask "If I take the high ground, will I get a bonus to hit?"

These sorts of things are core components of RPG play. They follow from the way that RPGs use real-world processes (often either geometric ones, like battle maps, or arithmetic ones, like reading dice results and adding or comparing numbers) to establish and change the fictional position of the players.

To be clear, the points I did not remove from your example I was contending were not negotiation, and the points that were negotiation, I contended were examples of failed play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Modes of play differ on this. We use the somewhat unideal concepts of "task resolution" and "conflict resolution" to get at the difference. With the former, players are limited to declaring what their characters try to do. With the latter, players are encouraged to say what their characters aim to achieve. Players can also have lists of fiats: things they can simply make true because a rule says they can make it true. There's no difference between attempt and intent, in the case of fiats: it just happens.

I don't think the distinction between task resolution and conflict resolution really matters when it comes to the process of how we determine the outcome. There is still a need to determine the outcome, either favorable to the player or unfavorable, or perhaps some mix of the two. We have at least two possible end states, and we need to determine which one becomes true.

Whether it is to open the lock or to find the evidence needed to prove the duke is a traitor doesn't change that.

I agree that it is subject to the rules. I do not call "being subject to rules" negotiation, and I'm mindful that following rules requires agreements entered into by some means outside those rules.

I don't know what "agreement outside the rules means".

We do not negotiate in every moment of roleplaying. We do negotiate in some moments of roleplaying. As for which moments count as roleplaying, while it is open to claim that only moments in which there is negotiation count as roleplaying, that is a stony path that will lead nowhere fruitful.

Yes, no one said that every single moment is a negotiation. Baker claims that the rules' primary purpose is to facilitate the negotiation. To ease or constrain it.

What job do you think principles and agenda are doing, in respect to agreement at later moments of play? I ask because either no one has answered this (I have asked twice before) or alternatively you did answer, and you said roughly that you would count them as elements of negotiation... which I'm saying thus obviate negotiation in some later moments, per Baker's example.

Principles and agenda help guide the participants in how to take part in the game. They certainly help facilitate negotiation. For instance, in Blades in the Dark, the player is free to select which Action they'd like to use to try and overcome an obstacle. The GM does not dictate which Action they choose, they choose it. However, the principle "Don't be a weasel" is in place to tell players that they should choose the Action most relevant to the move being made. It guides them in the back and forth of play.

I think there's the idea that there must be conflict between the parties in a negotiation, and I don't think that's true. Perhaps that's what's influencing this resistance to the idea. Very often during a negotiation both parties may be totally on board with a decision to be made. These are the moments Baker describes as "easing" the negotiation. There are very clear rules involved, and no back and forth is needed... whatever it is the participant has declared simply happens, and everyone accepts it. These moments of fiat that you site.

To be clear, the points I did not remove from your example I was contending were not negotiation, and the points that were negotiation, I contended were examples of failed play.

The idea that negotiation only happens when play has failed in some way is really extreme, I'd say. I don't expect many games would be considered successful by that metric.

 

[Pedantic]

The idea that negotiation only happens when play has failed in some way is really extreme, I'd say. I don't expect many games would be considered successful by that metric.

While we're being clear, also not my claim. Those specific examples of negotiation were failed play, and the other provided examples were not negotiation.

 

[FrogReaver]

You and the person you are talking to - discussing with - are coming to an agreement on what to imagine together.

There are interesting differences from consulting a text - typically, a text (or, at least, the bare facts of what words are written there in what order) doesn't change when you consult it. The transmission is, in some sense, one-way.

Whereas in a RPG the transmission is, typically, two-way - eg The player says Can we see the staff we're looking for in here?, and the GM says Well, the room you're looking at is pretty empty but there is a chest big enough to fit a staff into, and then the player says OK, we go up to the chest and inspect it.

Or the GM says It's too dark for you to see anything in the room and the player says We throw our lit torch along the ground to about the middle of the room - what do we see now?

Or the GM says It's too dark for you to see anything in the room and the player says What about my Goggles of Nightvision?

These are all examples - and I would regard them as pretty common-place examples - of game players having a discussion in order to reach agreement on what to imagine together.

Who does?

That said, it can be made hard, or at least harder. Eg D&D makes it harder to get people to imagine what happens when a group of doughty adventurers encounters a gang of angry Orcs than does, say, T&T.

First of all thank you for trying to explain without the word negotiate. It's noted and appreciated.

I'll answer without using the word either. 1. I agree there is a discussion. Discussion is an extremely low bar though so that should be no surprise. 2. However, the agreement about what to imagine was cared for when we initially had a discussion about playing this game. Note: many agreements are made once and exact details determined later. For example: The exact amount due on a per usage + flat fees contract, like a power or water bill.

More generally, if one discusses and agrees to follow process X, then asking for clarification about the precise details of process X doesn't constitute reforming that agreement or forming a new one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You and the person you are talking to - discussing with - are coming to an agreement on what to imagine together.

There are interesting differences from consulting a text - typically, a text (or, at least, the bare facts of what words are written there in what order) doesn't change when you consult it. The transmission is, in some sense, one-way.

Whereas in a RPG the transmission is, typically, two-way - eg The player says Can we see the staff we're looking for in here?, and the GM says Well, the room you're looking at is pretty empty but there is a chest big enough to fit a staff into, and then the player says OK, we go up to the chest and inspect it.

Or the GM says It's too dark for you to see anything in the room and the player says We throw our lit torch along the ground to about the middle of the room - what do we see now?

Or the GM says It's too dark for you to see anything in the room and the player says What about my Goggles of Nightvision?

These are all examples - and I would regard them as pretty common-place examples - of game players having a discussion in order to reach agreement on what to imagine together.

Yes, these are the sort of things that absolutely happen in the play. I wouldn't call any of this negotiation as there are no differing viewpoints that are being reconciled. But again, I don't think the exact words being used are important. So what is actually the point? Is this discussion going anywhere beyond semantics? We all agree these sort of discussions which help us imagine what happens occur. Then what?

 

[pemerton]

I don't think the exact words being used are important. So what is actually the point? Is this discussion going anywhere beyond semantics? We all agree these sort of discussions which help us imagine what happens occur. Then what?

What sort of rules, principles and mechanics will produce the shared imagination that is pleasing to us? (Which may not be exactly the same as what we want or what we would choose if unconstrained.)

Also: what allocation of "ownership", and of responsibilities for deciding what to say, will be satisfactory in the course of play?

 

[clearstream]

Taking negotiation as "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement" one rhetorical consequence I have noticed - in part through our debate in this thread - is an implication that such agreement is contingent. That conflicts with my observations of actual play; and while it serves the expectations of some modes of play, it gets in the way of the expectations of others.

I would rather label things what they are. For instance, I would rather label questions asked for the sake of clarifying our shared fiction, "clarification". I would rather label statements that establish uncontested truths, made by participants who - through prior agreement - have been given high ownership of the relevant facet of the fiction, "assertions". Tacit consent to such assertions - secured through the same prior agreement - I would rather label "tacit consent". And of course, when the conversation is perturbed - which happens during play for all kinds of reasons - I would rather call our discussion aimed at reaching shared agreements, "negotiation".

I would rather avoid semantic loadings with rhetorical consequences, and so much as possible apply the plainest term. Lengthy debate such as we are presently mired in make a good case that "negotiation" is not the plainest language for conducting equitable communication with folk holding diverse perspectives. That said, I feel like I've benefited from reading all the different perspectives here, so maybe one can respect that value of fraught language for driving debate?

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, these are the sort of things that absolutely happen in the play. I wouldn't call any of this negotiation as there are no differing viewpoints that are being reconciled.

I think the point of negotiations is not that there are always or must be "differing viewpoints that are being reconciled" in every moment of play, but, rather, the potential for differing viewpoints requiring reconciliation may exist in play. Much as Baker says, many times we just roll with it, figuratively speaking, when those differing viewpoints are minor or insignificant. Maybe we have been imagining orcs as green, but then the GM says that the orcs are brown. I am not necessarily entering into a formal negotiation or discussion with the GM, but I am now having to reconcile my prior imagination of orcs in the fiction with the new one. So I keep my mouth shut because it's not a big deal, and the game goes on.

But again, I don't think the exact words being used are important. So what is actually the point? Is this discussion going anywhere beyond semantics?

But who is playing at semantics then? Baker or you? If this doesn't matter or is important, why are you so resistant to use the term "negotiation" as per Baker's usage? You are the one who is pushing back against this use, so it does seem that it matters to you on some level. So what is your point in pushing back against the term "negotiation" here? Is it semantics? Or is there something else behind the push back?

We all agree these sort of discussions which help us imagine what happens occur. Then what?

IMHO, it's meant to help understand how game rules and system mechanics serve a function in facilitating this negotiation process between participants.

 

[clearstream]

I think the point of negotiations is not that there are always or must be "differing viewpoints that are being reconciled" in every moment of play, but, rather, the potential for differing viewpoints requiring reconciliation may exist in play.

In my above, I'm asking then - why use a word that would require additional querying to find out whether in this case it means "differing viewpoints are being reconciled" or not? Why not call things what they are?

One reason of course is for the (what I have called) rhetorical consequences of the chosen language. I can accept that back at the turn of the century when Baker was writing, that served a purpose; but is invoking those consequences really necessary today?

 

[Aldarc]

In my above, I'm asking then - why use a word that would require additional querying to find out whether in this case it means "differing viewpoints are being reconciled" or not? Why not call things what they are?

One reason of course is for the (what I have called) rhetorical consequences of the chosen language. I can accept that back at the turn of the century when Baker was writing, that served a purpose; but is invoking those consequences really necessary today?

It appearas that this assumption here in bold is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your argument.