RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[clearstream]

There is a sense that I get in this thread as some people trying to purposefully exclude traditional gaming (i.e., D&D) from the framing of negotiated imagination that Baker establishes as a sort of exceptionalism regardless of the merits of Baker's arguments. This is to say, there seems to be a desire from a few other arguments to frame "negotiated imagination" or just "negotiation" as something that happens in "those games," but that is entirely absent or minimal in "our games." However, Baker's examples seem to have D&D in mind. Despite that, there seems to be little attempts to earnestly engage the merits of his argument, as if Baker's thesis somehow precludes the above:

Seeing as my post was quoted, I can say that this contains a few misapprehensions about what I have said, but the key one is that I read Baker to have been well aware both of assertive play and the nature of preagreements sustaining it precisely because of his examples.

I'd draw a distinction between modes I observe D&D approached in. Assertive play and strong versions of its sustaining principles are often most observable in OSR approaches. 3d6 DTL actual play of Dolmenwood supplies hours of examples.

Neo-trad approaches to D&D are normally more concerned that character abilities work as players imagine. So by contrast concerns such as those @Manbearcat outlined can prompt negotiation during play. That said, once the play of a mechanic is settled, it can operate more as a fiat: allowing the controlling player to make assertions.

Note too my thoughts regarding the different perspectives and experience of design versus play, up-thread. At this point, my curiousity is beginning to redirect toward questioning if the crucial lusory-attitudes observed are, solely, negotiation and assertion? We've talked about clarification, but I see that as playing a part in those attitudes rather than in itself forming an instrumental attitude.

 

[Aldarc]

Seeing as my post was quoted, I can say that this contains a few misapprehensions about what I have said, but the key one is that I read Baker to have been well aware both of assertive play and the nature of preagreements sustaining it precisely because of his examples.

I apologize. I should have been clear that I was not necessarily targeting you and your argument despite quoting you. I also had @Lanefan's previous post in mind, namely how the relative lack of dissent or disagreement doesn't preclude negotiation or Baker's argument. However, the framing of your quote was a good piggy-back for the point that I wanted to make.

 

[Manbearcat]

Neo-trad approaches to D&D are normally more concerned that character abilities work as players imagine. So by contrast concerns such as those @Manbearcat outlined can prompt negotiation during play. That said, once the play of a mechanic is settled, it can operate more as a fiat: allowing the controlling player to make assertions.

Just a little clarity on what I'm putting forth.

For sure, there are "actions the rules don't cover" moments of play that will turn exceptions into subsequently encoded action resolution norms. However, what I'm talking about is both those initiating moments (where negotiation occurs to generate that encoding), but also:

* Dungeon rooms or wilderness locations in B/X where a player explores a locale via conversation (before committing to an action) and a process of "emergent stocking" (lets call it) occurs where the key for a dungeon room or a hex has (a) plenty of information encoded but (b) inevitably room for subsequent stocking at a more granular level. If/when a player asks "is there x here" or "is the nature of y thus" and that x and thus is pivotal to their decision-space and filling out and considering their potential lines of play, then I might roll 1d6 and on a 1 (or 1/2) say "yes" or I might outright say "yes" or I might outright say "no" contingent upon how that conversation unfurls (and how the minds directing it convey their mental model/extrapolations).

* Same thing for AD&D except I would have come up with a percentile number and rolled against that if I wanted to "disclaim decision-making" to a fortune roll.

So you have both:

1) How exceptions/stunts become encoded as you move through play.

2) Post-prep, granular stocking of dungeon rooms or hexes via the back-and-forth of play.

3) Not mentioned in the above, but when convincing an NPC (particularly an emergent one generated by a Wandering Monster or Random Encounter and an attendant Reaction Roll), the dynamics of (2) are true, just sub out the dynamics of furniture/topography (etc) for ethos and motivations.

 

[clearstream]

Just a little clarity on what I'm putting forth.

For sure, there are "actions the rules don't cover" moments of play that will turn exceptions into subsequently encoded action resolution norms. However, what I'm talking about is both those initiating moments (where negotiation occurs to generate that encoding), but also:

* Dungeon rooms or wilderness locations in B/X where a player explores a locale via conversation (before committing to an action) and a process of "emergent stocking" (lets call it) occurs where the key for a dungeon room or a hex has (a) plenty of information encoded but (b) inevitably room for subsequent stocking at a more granular level. If/when a player asks "is there x here" or "is the nature of y thus" and that x and thus is pivotal to their decision-space and filling out and considering their potential lines of play, then I might roll 1d6 and on a 1 (or 1/2) say "yes" or I might outright say "yes" or I might outright say "no" contingent upon how that conversation unfurls (and how the minds directing it convey their mental model/extrapolations).

* Same thing for AD&D except I would have come up with a percentile number and rolled against that if I wanted to "disclaim decision-making" to a fortune roll.

So you have both:

1) How exceptions/stunts become encoded as you move through play.

2) Post-prep, granular stocking of dungeon rooms or hexes via the back-and-forth of play.

3) Not mentioned in the above, but when convincing an NPC (particularly an emergent one generated by a Wandering Monster or Random Encounter and an attendant Reaction Roll), the dynamics of (2) are true, just sub out the dynamics of furniture/topography (etc) for ethos and motivations.

I accept your contention that those sorts of cases arise, and even feel confident of coming up with further examples of negotiation emerging during play... amidst spells of assertion. For clarity then, I do not say that negotiation never occurs during play.* To address any feeling that this is abstract, what I concretely observe is that actual play - both my own and that of others - proceeds via varying mixtures of negotiation and assertion.

I've pointed to Dolmenwood as an example of more of the latter, and can point to John Harper's own BitD campaign to show more of the former. I feel it is hard to explain either using a lense solely of assertion, or solely of negotiation. Adding complexity, increased frequencies of either can themselves depend on negotiation at an earlier moment in time. Although as a poster up-thread drew attention to, received norms may also play a role.

*EDIT Were I asked - "Is negotiation always needed for TTRPG play?" - I would answer "Yes, at some point in time." That could be wrong, but if so it's not badly wrong (and serves greater utility as a design assumption than the converse.)

 

[FrogReaver]

it strikes me that we are really discussing social theory and that the disagreements are fundamental to that and only tangentially related to rpging.

So what does social theory say on all this?

 

[Manbearcat]

it strikes me that we are really discussing social theory and that the disagreements are fundamental to that and only tangentially related to rpging.

So what does social theory say on all this?

?

I can’t even guess at what you’re pointing to here?

Nor can I guess why you’d frame a post this way? Do you have a thought about the content of your post or an answer to your question that you’re interested in elaborating on?

I get out my 10 ft pole and prod the last sentence. What happens?

 

[soviet]

It says 'this is definitely not an attempt at diversion in order to move the conversation past my crumbling position'

 

[FrogReaver]

It says 'this is definitely not an attempt at diversion in order to move the conversation past my crumbling position'

Why make comments just to try and inflame?

 

[FrogReaver]

EDIT What matters to me about negotiation is the implication of contingency. When "negotiation" is used, it can turn out to imply that assertion is impossible. Which goes against observation.

This is a good summary of what I've been trying to say - what I observe in most but not all of my play is assertions and it's only when my groups norms break down that negotiation happens.

Possibly if we phrased it thusly - 'there is a potential for negotiation at any moment, but the groups norms and prior agreements mean that potential for negotiation rarely becomes actual negotiation'. This is the mechanism that enables assertions to be made uncontested in groups.

I agree with that statement. It also leaves leeway about what precisely counts as negotiation - which is only really needed to be delved into if some idea depends on their being actual negotiation in the moment to moment.

I'm going to stop here and get some clarification about whether any idea in this thread does depend on actual negotiation occurring in the moment to moment as opposed to their being the potential for negotiation in the moment to moment.

 

[FrogReaver]

?

I can’t even guess at what you’re pointing to here?

Nor can I guess why you’d frame a post this way? Do you have a thought about the content of your post or an answer to your question that you’re interested in elaborating on?

I get out my 10 ft pole and prod the last sentence. What happens?

Sorry, i didn't explain myself well - what I mean is that there is alot of academic study on how social agreements work and what we are talking about here about here, 'agreeing on what to imagine' is a social agreement. Thus, this isn't a question rooted solely in the domain of rpging. I don't know what all is said on the topic academically - i've not studied it very much - but I would think there would be much better resources and research on the topic outside rpg centered circles.