Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9218134" data-attributes="member: 71699">For me any dissent is only around how strongly one reads Baker's thesis.He wrote thatBut when I examine the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=BUL1fIsPGBc" target="_blank">Old School Essentials Dolmenwood</a> actual play (linked is episode 1) I observe that considerable time at the table is spent saying what is true without negotiation. One could exclude such moments from &quot;roleplaying&quot; so that we are &quot;roleplaying&quot; only at moments we are doing a) and b). I think there are numerous obvious problems with that line of reasoning.Baker also wrote thatYet mechanics are also crafted to offer satisfying game play, and they very much can exist for that purpose, or for the purpose of modelling the game world. Some mechanics do indeed exist to ease and constrain social negotiation between players at the table: that's the sole and crucial function of those mechanics.I read Baker as describing something of crucial important to roleplaying, but I do not interpret him to be saying that roleplaying is only doing a) and b). Rather he is calling attention to the centrality and criticality of a) and b). In part, I base that on interpreting his three cases forto imply that he is well aware that roleplaying isn't solely negotiation: it does not occur in every moment of play, but only in some moments of play. His first case - &quot;sometimes not much at all&quot; - exemplifies reliance on pre-agreements (making the &quot;right participant&quot;, right). There's no in the moment negotiation in that case. I haven't timed it, but I would guess the majority of moments in OSE Dolmenwood to be play of that ilk.One reason I mention Dolmenwood is because I feel like the assumption of negotiation in every moment itself serves an important purpose in some modes of play. The pre-agreement is that the fiction is up for negotiation in every moment... an impactful baselining of norms for play. OSE exemplifies another mode, where pre-agreements are more like those delivering Bakers first case, i.e. that there is an undisputed &quot;right&quot; in play. I count this roleplaying no less than the other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9218134, member: 71699"] For me any dissent is only around how strongly one reads Baker's thesis. He wrote that But when I examine the [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=BUL1fIsPGBc']Old School Essentials Dolmenwood[/URL] actual play (linked is episode 1) I observe that considerable time at the table is spent saying what is true [I]without[/I] negotiation. One could exclude such moments from "roleplaying" so that we are "roleplaying" only at moments we are doing a) and b). I think there are numerous obvious problems with that line of reasoning. Baker also wrote that Yet mechanics are [I]also [/I]crafted to offer satisfying game play, and they very much [I]can [/I]exist for that purpose, or for the purpose of modelling the game world. [I]Some[/I] mechanics do indeed exist to ease and constrain social negotiation between players at the table: that's the sole and crucial function of [I]those mechanics.[/I] I read Baker as describing something of crucial important to roleplaying, but I do not interpret him to be saying that roleplaying is [I]only [/I]doing a) and b). Rather he is calling attention to the centrality and criticality of a) and b). In part, I base that on interpreting his three cases for to imply that he is well aware that roleplaying isn't [I]solely [/I]negotiation: it does not occur in [I]every[/I] moment of play, but only in some moments of play. His first case - "sometimes not much at all" - exemplifies reliance on pre-agreements (making the "right participant", right). There's no in the moment negotiation in that case. I haven't timed it, but I would guess the majority of moments in OSE Dolmenwood to be play of that ilk. One reason I mention Dolmenwood is because I feel like the [I]assumption [/I]of negotiation in every moment itself serves an important purpose in some modes of play. The pre-agreement is that the fiction is [I]up for negotiation in every moment[/I]... an impactful baselining of norms for play. OSE exemplifies another mode, where pre-agreements are more like those delivering Bakers first case, i.e. that there is an undisputed "right" in play. I count this roleplaying no less than the other. [/QUOTE]

Verification