RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Aldarc]

We're actually have a lumping/splitting disagreement, not a semantic one, though we got here from semantics. Baker is asserting a bunch of things belong in the category "negotiation" and are fundamentally the same. The disagreement is that some things do not belong in that category and are not the same. His usage of the term is perfectly clear, but the reason for his usage of the term and the rhetorical purpose it serves is the point of contention.

That's right, with the modest tweak that I get the impression that folk in the thread see that "negotiation" has multiple connotations that are not the same. And because of that semantic loading, the "usage of the term and the rhetorical purpose it serves is the point of contention", as you say.

I am more curious about the rhetorical it purpose it serves for people to question his usage of the term "negotiation."

Pages of debate in this thread demonstrate that we do necessarily need said additional querying.

This sidesteps my point that we regularly engage in conversations with different understandings of words without requiring additional querying. That we are doing so here in this thread, which is fairly safe to say now fueled by the egos of people* mostly trying to score points against each other, is moot.

* including those with axes to grind against Baker and games inspired by his design

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ok. So determining whether my attack hits a goblin by comparing a dice roll to the goblin's AC is a negotiation. Now what? What does calling everything negotiation achieve beyond confusing people?

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok. So determining whether my attack hits a goblin by comparing dice roll to the goblin's AC is a negotiation. Now what? What does calling everything negotiation achieve beyond confusing people?

Now we know that TTRPGs persistently feature (i) participants who (ii) index an imagined space + (iii) action resolution + (iv) relevant ephemera (like maps/keys etc) + (v) conversation to navigate and audit a gamestate to ensure compliance (with system, with whatever continuity, with social contract) and generate a fiction (whether that fiction is incidental or intentional).

Constituent parts of this (particularly the role of ii and v together combined with the incidental or intentional generation of a fiction) and the necessity of the collective parts in whole is what separates TTRPGs from parlor games or boardgames. So if you're talking about or designing for a TTRPG or introducing someone new to TTRPGs who only have a background in parlor games or boardgames, these differences matter (to the talk, to the design, to the introduction).

That was the crux of the lead post as I understood it. I didn't think it was particularly controversial. I'm surprised the thread lasted this long to be honest. If we've arrived at a place now where we're collectively at the "now what" phase or going "ok, not terribly controversial", then I guess..."yay us?"

But it doesn't feel like we all agree on that stuff.

 

[Aldarc]

Now we know that TTRPGs persistently feature (i) participants who (ii) index an imagined space + (iii) action resolution + (iv) relevant ephemera (like maps/keys etc) + (v) conversation to navigate and audit a gamestate to ensure compliance (with system, with whatever continuity, with social contract) and generate a fiction (whether that fiction is incidental or intentional).

Constituent parts of this (particularly the role of ii and v together combined with the incidental or intentional generation of a fiction) and the necessity of the collective parts in whole is what separates TTRPGs from parlor games or boardgames. So if you're talking about or designing for a TTRPG or introducing someone new to TTRPGs who only have a background in parlor games or boardgames, these differences matter (to the talk, to the design, to the introduction).

That was the crux of the lead post as I understood it. I didn't think it was particularly controversial. I'm surprised the thread lasted this long to be honest. If we've arrived at a place now where we're collectively at the "now what" phase or going "ok, not terribly controversial", then I guess..."yay us?"

But it doesn't feel like we all agree on that stuff.

Okay. But now what?!

 

[Thomas Shey]

I dunno what lumping/splitting disagreement means.

Basically its a question of when certain things can be usefully put together as a category and when they need to be separated out. Often in RPG discussions its about how character definitions are or aren't separated, but I believe Pedantic is suggesting here that in this case some participants are treating classes of discussion as of a kind that others don't think are.

Edit: Or, Pedantic could beat me to it and explain it himself.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Now we know that TTRPGs persistently feature (i) participants who (ii) index an imagined space + (iii) action resolution + (iv) relevant ephemera (like maps/keys etc) + (v) conversation to navigate and audit a gamestate to ensure compliance (with system, with whatever continuity, with social contract) and generate a fiction (whether that fiction is incidental or intentional).

Constituent parts of this (particularly the role of ii and v together combined with the incidental or intentional generation of a fiction) and the necessity of the collective parts in whole is what separates TTRPGs from parlor games or boardgames. So if you're talking about or designing for a TTRPG or introducing someone new to TTRPGs who only have a background in parlor games or boardgames, these differences matter (to the talk, to the design, to the introduction).

That was the crux of the lead post as I understood it. I didn't think it was particularly controversial. I'm surprised the thread lasted this long to be honest. If we've arrived at a place now where we're collectively at the "now what" phase or going "ok, not terribly controversial", then I guess..."yay us?"

But it doesn't feel like we all agree on that stuff.

I don't think the initial point of imagination being a significant component of RPGs is particularly controversial. We just got on usual sidetracks thanks to the confusing forgey language as is traditional. However, if the point was that this reliance on imagination is what defines roleplay, then I don't agree. For example Once Upon a Time definitely relies on imagination, yet it is not a roleplaying game. What is definitional to roleplay, is taking a role of a character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What is definitional to roleplay, is taking a role of a character.

And how do you do that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And how do you do that?

Quite easily!

(Seriously, little kids know how to do it.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Quite easily!

(Seriously, little kids know how to do it.)

Yes yes… and what do little kids use to do it? What’s the word for that?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes yes… and what do little kids use to do it? What’s the word for that?

Sure, it is imagination. And not necessarily shared kind. Imagining being an another person doesn't require sharing that imagination. Now sure, if you're playing with other you share some parts of it. But saying that roleplaying is about shred imagination is insufficient.