RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[Campbell]

The core message that Vincent is trying to convey with negotiated imagination is that in order for play to move forward we must all assent to each other's contributions. That at its core a roleplaying game is structured conversation wherein we reach a consensus on what happens in a fictional situation. Whether or not we want to call that process of reaching consensus "negotiation" or not is largely immaterial.

This is clarified by the Lumpley (or Baker-Care Principal)

The fictional events of play in a role playing game are dependent on the consensus of the players involved in order to be accepted as having occurred. All formal and informal rules, procedures, discussion, interactions and activities which form this consensus comprise the full system used in play.

 

[Campbell]

Speaking for myself, one reason I want to describe the phenomenology of play is because the language being used to describe what we are trying to achieve via design doesn’t adequately describe the kinds of games I want to see designed - ones where participant assertions are the norm and negotiation is minimized. If I can describe the phenomenology I can describe what I want to see achieved via the design.

I really don't understand the zero-sum logic of trying to establish one set of norms over the other. RPG play is a rich tapestry of many different play methodologies. We can all get new games and material that suits a variety of ways to play. That's a good thing. As much as possible I think the phenomenology should be accurate and leave room to treat all sorts of ways to structure the conversation as legitimate.

 

[clearstream]

The core message that Vincent is trying to convey with negotiated imagination is that in order for play to move forward we must all assent to each other's contributions. That at its core a roleplaying game is structured conversation wherein we reach a consensus on what happens in a fictional situation. Whether or not we want to call that process of reaching consensus "negotiation" or not is largely immaterial.

To me it matters if consensus is active in the moment, preagreed, or down to norms, as it tells me that game designers can design for such things, and I can make choices about them in my play.

As an example, lines and veils, and similar means of raising consensus from unspoken norms to spoken preagreements; articulating it up front and providing mechanisms for checking it in the moment if it becomes stressed. Lines and veils aren't ideally established through negotiation: each participant simply asserts theirs.

I can observe play proceeding through assertion, and think about the advantages and disadvantages of doing so. And so on.

I really don't understand the zero-sum logic of trying to establish one set of norms over the other. RPG play is a rich tapestry of many different play methodologies. We can all get new games and material that suits a variety of ways to play. That's a good thing. As much as possible I think the phenomenology should be accurate and leave room to treat all sorts of ways to structure the conversation as legitimate.

I read @FrogReaver to be providing an example of its materiality to them. It helps them identify a kind of play that they find they enjoy. That's not promoting one set of norms over another. It's just suggesting that having the language to describe play you enjoy can help you find it. I liked your post as I took your closing sentence to align with that suggestion.

 

[pemerton]

The core message that Vincent is trying to convey with negotiated imagination is that in order for play to move forward we must all assent to each other's contributions. That at its core a roleplaying game is structured conversation wherein we reach a consensus on what happens in a fictional situation.

What I would add: as per my posts upthread, this is necessary in an imagination-based game because there are no physical cues (eg a board, cards, tokens, etc) nor purely logical rules (about number, position, etc) to keep everyone anchored to the same "game space".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What I would add: as per my posts upthread, this is necessary in an imagination-based game because there are no physical cues (eg a board, cards, tokens, etc) nor purely logical rules (about number, position, etc) to keep everyone anchored to the same "game space".

Sure. Though how much decision making actually happens based on this imaginary space varies a lot. For example in D&D combats with a detailed map game often becomes more "board gamey," with people primarily using codified powers and moves and the terrain conditions, obstacles etc are defined by the map. (I think this was particularly prevalent in 4e, with its detailed powers that practically required it to be played this way.) And I think that in these days a lot of people play using virtual tabletops with detailed maps (where GM can position individual furniture or even smaller details) even outside of the combat, making that experience too less reliant on shared imagination. And of course what also affects things is how codified things are in the rules. With more relaxed rules you need a lot of interpretation based on the imaginary situation, whilst more codified rules might have less need for such judgement calls.

Now personally I don't like my RPGs to become terribly board gamey, and prefer things work mainly via the imaginary space, and of course some of that imaginary aspect is present in any game. Just pointing out that how much the game actually relies on it is affected by these factors.

 

[clearstream]

What I would add: as per my posts upthread, this is necessary in an imagination-based game because there are no physical cues (eg a board, cards, tokens, etc) nor purely logical rules (about number, position, etc) to keep everyone anchored to the same "game space".

I would argue that assent is necessary even in boardgames where physical cues are abundant. The cases that stress assent aren't identical, of course, but it can easily be tested. Just put in place for yourself alternative rules for some of the pieces. Or consider what it means to cheat. There's a 2018 paper by Indrek Reiland on how rules can be constitutive that I think casts some useful light.

Assent is relied on whenever rules require us to voluntarily follow them... as is normally the case in games. In fact, one would say it was distinctive of games were it not that the super-category includes computer games.

EDIT The above isn't to dispute your observation of the anchoring effects of the components of game as artifact. TTRPG game texts themselves are artifacts.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. "GMs are very good at orchestrating conflict, and it's hard to see a rawer solution."

Suppose there are no competing conceptions of the fiction: the GM only ever gets to say things about stuff they own (and so never, eg, the PCs); and the players only get to say things about stuff they own (and so never, eg, the setting or NPCs). I think that game will not be very compelling in play. It will deliver "shopping trip" or "I have a drink at the tavern"-type play, but no conflict.

I’m not seeing competing conceptions of fiction as being necessary to generate conflict.

‘The goblins attack the tavern you are in’ is quintessential d&d play and doesn’t require competing conceptions of fiction’.

 

[FrogReaver]

What I would add: as per my posts upthread, this is necessary in an imagination-based game because there are no physical cues (eg a board, cards, tokens, etc) nor purely logical rules (about number, position, etc) to keep everyone anchored to the same "game space".

Would it be fair to say that discussion in order to establish the ‘board state’ in Ttrpgs serves the same purpose as the physical cues of a board game? (To anchor everyone into the same ‘game space’)

 

[FrogReaver]

The core message that Vincent is trying to convey with negotiated imagination is that in order for play to move forward we must all assent to each other's contributions. That at its core a roleplaying game is structured conversation wherein we reach a consensus on what happens in a fictional situation. Whether or not we want to call that process of reaching consensus "negotiation" or not is largely immaterial.

This is clarified by the Lumpley (or Baker-Care Principal)

I don’t really disagree with this. It’s the notion that there are necessarily conflicting conceptions of fiction being chosen between that I’ve pushed back on - that’s just not required in a structured conversation to establish what happens next. It can be present, but isn’t required. I’ll also note the use of structured which is a reference back to what I’ve called pre-agreements.

I also think required assent is broader than RPGs. It’s every board game, every cooperative social activity. Even contrary to @clearstream it’s even present in computer games - it’s just that computer program logic serves as the arbiter regarding most rules interactions. The participants still have to choose that game and then assent to no house rules within the interactions they have control over - (think as an example the agreement of no rush X minutes in real time strategy games).

 

[FrogReaver]

I really don't understand the zero-sum logic of trying to establish one set of norms over the other. RPG play is a rich tapestry of many different play methodologies. We can all get new games and material that suits a variety of ways to play. That's a good thing. As much as possible I think the phenomenology should be accurate and leave room to treat all sorts of ways to structure the conversation as legitimate.

I’m not trying to establish one set of norms over the other. In fact I’m trying to do the opposite.

If you want to say some RPGs depend on negotiation and different conceptions of fiction to generate conflict then I fully agree. I’m good with that being normalized. It’s taking that from some to all that I find incorrect.

I’ll also note that there’s typically A strong pushback anytime anyone someone suggests the d&d play is better explained by different concepts than Bakers.

My conclusion is then that I’m pushing back against the inaccurate descriptions and de-normalization of d&d, which I don’t think is intended, but directionally this is what Bakerian explanations tend to do to many d&d playstyles at least implicitly.

I also fully agree with that last sentence.

Edit: Also, I am curious what makes you think I am pushing for one set of norms over another?