That Thread in Which We Ruminate on the Confluence of Actor Stance, Immersion, and "Playing as if I Was My Character"

[Ovinomancer]

It may be important but that doesn't make it not obvious. On board game night when we all decide on Settlers of Cataan instead of Ticket to Ride, a negotiation has occurred. So some sort of negotiation is true of all games involving 2 or more people.

What may not be obvious is roleplaying games are not just one game. That beyond choosing D&D perhaps you should also decide on the style of game. In my case though there really isn't much of a negotiation. I announce I have a campaign ready to go in my preferred style and ask who is interested. Those who are join my game and those who are not do not. I'd even go so far as to add that the beyond the game, and the style, there is also the theme of the world. So I might have a player want to play one themed game but not another. But there really isn't much negotiation going on. It's take it or leave it.

That you cannot see the negotiation inherent in this, or that you don't see the negotiation that takes place during your game (the negotiation of action declarations attempting to achieve a specific goal and your, as GM, preferences for outcomes) is the reason so many recent discussions have been a challenge with you.

 

[Emerikol]

That you cannot see the negotiation inherent in this, or that you don't see the negotiation that takes place during your game (the negotiation of action declarations attempting to achieve a specific goal and your, as GM, preferences for outcomes) is the reason so many recent discussions have been a challenge with you.

It's your redefining of plain english terms to mean something different that is likely the culprit.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think the argument @Ovinomancer is making is at least consistent with "take it or leave it" being at least in the neighborhood of negotiation, and while I wouldn't (probably) have chosen to describe what happens in play as "negotiation"--at least, not as a universal--it's ... not inaccurate enough for me to argue with.

Not just this, but negotiation happens all the time in the game. What gets confused is that the GM setting DCs or asking for rolls or narrating outcomes is seen as outside negotiation, but it's not -- it's part and parcel of it. What really confuses me is that people will make the argument that there's no negotiation involved, or it's trite and obvious and simplistic, but then insist that proper roleplaying is a social engagement acting out between players as PCs and GM as NPCs -- as if this isn't an explicit negotiation.

 

[pemerton]

finding and recovering the treasures (but not for himself; "this should be in a museum!") is what drives him.

Is it? Or would he sacrifice them to save his friends and family? And/or his relationship with friends and family?

It's not a story about D&D either for the most part. It's not how Gygax played either. It's really a caricature and that was the point. I gave Indiana Jones, the original, as a story where treasure collecting was going on but it is not what the story is about. That was my intent. I'm glad you got it.

Treasure is a means to an end in most D&D games I know. There are a lot of other agendas going on besides just mindless dungeon crawling.

In your D&D games do the players regularly recover loot from the bodies or hoards of dead/defeated foes?

EDIT to reply to more on the same topic:

While any x.p. system is bound to have some downsides, I like x.p. == gold better than x.p. for monsters. I find PCs acting out of character as a motivation to gain x.p. to be far worse when killing monsters is the motive. Gold is worthwhile even if there were no x.p. So PCs chasing gold is realistic even without the x.p. motive.

It's the implied setting of D&D which was my point. It is an assumed characteristic of the world. And in many of your examples the rewards would be commensurate with the setting but people do tend to carry something of value if they are good enough to be challenging a D&D group. Not in 100% of the cases but in most cases.

But since it is an assumed characteristic of the world, the party doesn't have to place an inordinate amount of focus on merely acquiring gold for gold's sake. They can be confident whatever enemies they face will have some gold. There are many other motivations. Again you idea of a D&D game is a caricature and I'm sure you can find some ten year olds playing that style of game. Maybe even some really boring unimaginative adults. I don't have that problem. My groups are motivated by all sorts of things going on in the world. So having mechanical impetus is something I don't see as required to have good roleplaying. It can appear organically in almost any roleplaying situation if the group is trying and the DM is half good.

I don't know where mechanical impetus came from. My point is that the collecting of gold from opponents in classic D&D style is a game device, and not part of a well-developed protagonist-centred fiction. That you characterise chasing gold as realistic for PCs just drives the point home. The way it's done in D&D - which has very little in common with Treasure Island or The Secret of the Unicorn - is a game device, invented by Gygax and Arneson.

In my games, I've always held the GM to be the final authority on everything. Of course I am also aware that this phrase is true "Whatever the DM says goes but if he says enough stupid stuff, the players will go too". I also hold that character sensory input from the DM is the only real connection to the campaign setting the players have.

This does remind me of something we were talking about recently in another thread . . .

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's your redefining of plain english terms to mean something different that is likely the culprit.

Sigh. Yes, that must be it.

 

[Campbell]

I find negotiated imagination a pretty apt metaphor for skilled play of the fiction actually. As player you ask a bunch of questions about the fiction so you can negotiate a better position in the fiction for your character. When I say my character does something what I'm actually doing is proposing a change in the state of the fiction. I work those details out with the GM. Because the GM is coming to the negotiation with a stronger position does not mean it ceases to be a negotiation.

 

[pemerton]

I wouldn't subscribe to that philosophy at all. I can see how it fits though for some of the styles people here like to play.

It's not a philosophy. It's an assertion about the core function of mechanics in RPGs.

 

[prabe]

Not just this, but negotiation happens all the time in the game. What gets confused is that the GM setting DCs or asking for rolls or narrating outcomes is seen as outside negotiation, but it's not -- it's part and parcel of it. What really confuses me is that people will make the argument that there's no negotiation involved, or it's trite and obvious and simplistic, but then insist that proper roleplaying is a social engagement acting out between players as PCs and GM as NPCs -- as if this isn't an explicit negotiation.

Yeah. While "negotiation" probably wouldn't have been the word I would have landed on, if I'd been thinking my way through it without seeing the quotation first (and no I don't know what my word choice would have been) I don't disagree much, or in ways I can elucidate easily. I'm certainly not looking for a fight over it, and didn't think I was particularly disagreeing with you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. While "negotiation" probably wouldn't have been the word I would have landed on, if I'd been thinking my way through it without seeing the quotation first (and no I don't know what my word choice would have been) I don't disagree much, or in ways I can elucidate easily. I'm certainly not looking for a fight over it, and didn't think I was particularly disagreeing with you.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, either, rather just extrapolating more using your post as a springboard.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don’t see how an RPG can not be seen as a negotiation, really. Some of the decisions are made ahead of play, and some during play, some with dice and some without, but all those factors are part of the negotiation.

I’m going to attack the orc. My goal is to change the fiction so that the orc is dead. We’ve agreed that such a request requires a roll of the dice and consulting of rules.

I want to convince the guard to let us by. Depending on the game, this may require a strong argument on my part explaining why it’s reasonable for the guard to do so, or it may require a roll, or maybe it will require both. We’ve likely (at least loosely) decided how his will be resolved when we chose what game to play.

I can see how the idea of the game being a negotiation may not be readily apparent, but once made I don’t really see how it can be refuted.