Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9211702" data-attributes="member: 71699">I don't see my comments as counter-examples, exactly. Looking at the exampleGM: "The Orcs rush towards you, attacking with their spears! Player: "I use my special reaction <refers to relevant rule> to cast a Wall of Force directly in front of the Orcs."I take that second line to represent the sort of "negotiation" Baker is thinking of, because it proposes an amendment to the orcs rush forward. What I'm pointing out is that the word "negotiation" can lead folk to think that there should be some negotiating. What we see is a series of complementary proposals, which are very often accepted without any negotiating. What might "negotiating" look likePlayer: "What, really? Spears? That detail looks wrong to me. How about making it axes? This would be a suspension of consent, and presumably a resumption if the GM consented to axes. The original doesn't seem like any consent is lost and reaffirmed even though the "rush" is going to be amended to a "run abruptly into your Wall". It feels like the orcs still got to rush and then they ran into that wall. Nothing was taken back or amended, really. Instead, proposals were made in series under a continuation of consent. Again, I do not say that "negotiating" strictly speaking requires taking back or amending. It can include conceding an addition (like the Wall) just as well.To me this isn't a major point. Some have felt reluctant to get too much into semantics. I've many times now observed folk resisting Baker's framing. Not because what he describes is incorrect, but because the words he uses to describe it suggest something that frequently isn't observed in play. They suggest active concepts that are live in each moment - negotiating, consenting - rather than what you described. In the past I have put "<refers to relevant rule>" as an exercise of fiat or leverage over the fiction. Given I have a right of appeal to the rule recorded on my character sheet, that rule bestows a fiat over the ongoing fiction: I can submit a draft that suits me in the way the rule outlines. GM: "Cool! They try to rush towards you, but run abruptly into your Wall. The wave their spears and curse at you from the other side of it." [AIt's not exactly wrong to call this negotiation, but seeing as many times folk have resisted that term as a good description of their play and that a central purpose of language is to communicate, it is semantically problematic. We can say - it's a technical matter and it's best to keep the term for its technical merit - i.e. just call it out as jargon. Or we can search for alternative ways to describe it, that more folk will find intuitively matches their play. I'm not deeply invested in either route... I just find it interesting to discuss.A good example to my mind is where we actually make a roll.Orc Player: I want to dispel the Wall. Player: No way, the Wall stays! GM: Okay Orcs, cross off a Dispel spell and roll against 10+ the casting level of the wall.The advocate for the orcs might like to just say that the wall is gone. Poof, dispelled. But someone else at the table doesn't want that. This looks a lot like what I think folk have in mind when they use words like "negotiate". The player isn't willing to just consent to their Wall being gone. They challenge that. The group have agreed to let mechanics and dice settle such disputes.Orc Player: Darn, a 6, I guess the Wall stays.The orc player didn't want to consent to the Wall, but in this moment following the rules means doing so. One can see that this relies on an overriding agreement to follow the rules. As I've said in the past, agreement to follow a rule never resides in that rule.If you watch video of Baker running Apocalypse World actual play in "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NcanVthL8A" target="_blank">How We Role</a>", you'll see why I added an orc player to the example. Baker sets up situations where players are in conflict with one another. They'll use the PbtA mechanics to negotiate and come to agreement in each moment of conflict. It visibly demonstrates what Baker is talking about, and shows that even if in some modes of play a continuation of an initial consent may come closer to what folk feel is happening, it can just as well be observed as an elision of stuff going on under the hood; that is brought out into the harsh daylight in AW play. In considering ongoing consent, you must picture scenarios where that consent could fail. In doing so, you see that the assumption of agreement, and at various times active carriage of it, is crucial.My attempts to tune and rephrase Baker's general observation are not counter-examples. I hope that is clear.</blockquote>

Verification