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

[Ovinomancer]

Then we have no common framework in THIS universe because what you just said is complete nonsense.

You can't redefine words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

You keep saying I'm redefining a word, here, when I'm using it exactly as it's defined in the dictionary cited in this thread (you liked that post, even).

One of two things is going on, here. Either you're smuggling in some other concepts into the definition of negotiate, like maybe picturing a stiff, formal process where everyone's clearly aware of both the goals and the process, or you're just actively hostile to the idea that you're negotiating with players during play because it stands athwart your assertion that you're the boss as GM. The former is something I cannot do anything about except encourage you to not do this, and for the latter I'd encourage a bit more awareness of the study of social dynamics -- even dictators negotiate all the time.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe it's because I'm a law lecturer and I deal with lawyers, judges, arbitrators, that this seems so off. You keep conflating the lawyer with the judge, the player with the referee, Tony Slattery with Clive Anderson. In an RPG the referee is not trying to 'get what they want', they are adjudicating the player's attempt to get what he/she wants.

Of course the referee is trying to get what they want. What the referee wants is honest opposition to the PCs -- to play things according to whatever motivations they have been assigned in the most honest way possible. As such, they have a position that may or may not coincide with player wants. If it does coincide, the negotiation is swift and agreeable -- you could say it's even skipped. If they don't coincide, then any number of negotiation methods and tools can be deployed, according to social contract agreed to. Perhaps this negotiation is also swift, as the GM employs negotiated authority to declare an outcome, or maybe there's a discussion about what's best, or maybe game mechanics are used to resolve the conflict, or maybe all three. The thing is that there's a conflict about the shared imagined space that needs to be resolved, and this is a negotiation to see who gets what.

Improv actors do constantly engage in negotiation with each other, because none of them has sole authority to determine stuff. The (traditional) RPG GM when presenting the world is not in negotiation stance. Saying they are just confuses their role.

GMs do not actually have sole authority. We act like they do, but they don't, because RPGs are a social engagement, and all kinds of social pressures and implicit social contracts constrain the GM and create space for negotiation. Not least of these is the understanding that the game will be fun.

 

[prabe]

I, as a player, want to kill the orc. How does this happen in the game. If you reach for conflict resolution mechanics, you're admitting that a negotiation is taking place -- we're using an agreed arbitration process to determine who gets what they want. Inputs into this are the fictional positioning I can establish as a player and the fictional positioning the GM can establish, which are themselves codified by earlier negotiation.

No one has the unilateral authority to declare what happens in the shared fiction, unless it's stopped being shared.

I've had a few moments to think, and I think I understand why some people might not see your example as "negotiation."

Before I express those thought, though, I wanna say I'm not entirely disagreeing with the idea, so much as the word "negotiation."

For some tables (and probably some games) what explicit negotiation there is, is in the decision of what game to play. Maybe there's some, if the players are allowed input into the setting at chargen (e.g, backstories, the way I use them), or if there's a discussion of houserules. But that's roughly it.

There might be some explicit negotiation in-play, depending on the game, and how it's run; @dragoner suggests one way immediately upthread, and asking after the player's intention with a given action ("What exactly are you trying to accomplish, here?) might be another--though both of those might be more implicit negotiation than explicit.

Passing something (say, your desire to kill an orc) off to rules doesn't feel so much like negotiation as it does like mandatory arbitration: The players around the table have already come to their agreement as to the rules they're playing by, here. Games that allow players to more directly shape the setting in-play seem more-likely to feel explicitly negotiated in-play.

 

[S'mon]

GMs do not actually have sole authority. We act like they do, but they don't, because RPGs are a social engagement, and all kinds of social pressures and implicit social contracts constrain the GM and create space for negotiation. Not least of these is the understanding that the game will be fun.

I guess judges don't have sole authority either by this metric - there are always constraints.

 

[S'mon]

The thing is that there's a conflict about the shared imagined space

A conflict about the shared imagined space? I don't think so, not if players and GM are on the same page as to what is happening.

IME GM-player negotiation is what happens when there has been a breakdown in trust; it is the result of a dysfunctional play state - where there actually is a "conflict about* the shared imagined space". The GM may have to resort to negotiation to attempt to re-establish trust and restore the 'shared imagined space'. But that hopefully only happens rarely.

*"But I was hiding!" "No you weren't!" "Yes I was!" "But you don't have cover!" "But I was hiding!" "But he was your ally! And right in front of you!" "But I was hiding! I rolled!" etc etc

 

[Ovinomancer]

@S'mon, @prabe,

The issue here appears to be the former of the two I posited to @Emerikol, which is that some other conceptions are being smuggled into negotiation when these don't actually exist. There appears to be an expectation that negotiation requires an explicit understanding by all parties at all times that a negotiation is taking place. This is not required in the definition -- it's being smuggled in.

A conflict about the shared imagined space? I don't think so, not if players and GM are on the same page as to what is happening.

IME GM-player negotiation is what happens when there has been a breakdown in trust; it is the result of a dysfunctional play state - where there actually is a "conflict about* the shared imagined space". The GM may have to resort to negotiation to attempt to re-establish trust and restore the 'shared imagined space'. But that hopefully only happens rarely.

*"But I was hiding!" "No you weren't!" "Yes I was!" "But you don't have cover!" "But I was hiding!" "But he was your ally! And right in front of you!" "But I was hiding! I rolled!" etc etc

No, negotiation is happening all the time -- you're imagining a specific, more formal and explicit discussion where both sides are formally engaged in negotiation. This is an example of the smuggling I'm talking about. You're negotiating with others all the time, about all kinds of things, on a nearly continuous basis. We're negotiating about what negotiating means, right now. Most negotiation is not brought to the conscious, explicit level because there is trust -- loss of trust is not the trigger for negotiation, but rather trust is often the basis for most negotiations. Negotiation is merely the seeking of an agreeable outcome to any situation where there is obfuscation of desires. And, since we can't know what anyone else is thinking (and are often clueless about what we, ourselves, are thinking) negotiation is a default occurrence in any social setting -- including RPGs. That most negotiations end up having both sides wanting the same thing doesn't change that the process of feeling out the other side and coming to a mutually agreed resolution doesn't happen, it just often does so below the level of being aware of the negotiation.

 

[Campbell]

I think there's pretty much always some conflict about the shared imagined space. We're just pretty good at implicit negotiation because most of us are extremely well practiced about it. I don't think it's a dysfunctional state of play at all. Working on achieving that shared experience is hard work.

 

[prabe]

@S'mon, @prabe,

The issue here appears to be the former of the two I posited to @Emerikol, which is that some other conceptions are being smuggled into negotiation when these don't actually exist. There appears to be an expectation that negotiation requires an explicit understanding by all parties at all times that a negotiation is taking place. This is not required in the definition -- it's being smuggled in.

I think the shared imagined space (nice phrasing, @Campbell ) is agreed-upon, but I think it's worth considering that sometimes it's explicitly negotiated, sometimes it's implicitly negotiated, and sometimes it's arbitrated. Some people will feel that anything not explicitly negotiated isn't negotiated; I'm not sure I feel strongly enough to tell anyone they're wrong about it.

 

[Umbran]

That's not what you quoted, which was a different statement that used "core" and for which you restated almost verbatim subbing in "sole."

With all due respect, no.

It would be a diverting change of pace if you actually put forth an argument instead of just driving by and tossing out random criticism.

Stop making this personal.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the shared imagined space (nice phrasing, @Campbell ) is agreed-upon, but I think it's worth considering that sometimes it's explicitly negotiated, sometimes it's implicitly negotiated, and sometimes it's arbitrated. Some people won't feel that anything not explicitly negotiated isn't negotiated; I'm not sure I feel strongly enough to tell anyone they're wrong about it.

"If I can't see something actively fall, then it's not effected by gravity."

Unsurprisingly, I fall into the "it's negotiation" side of this debate. Negotiation that happens prior to play - e.g., rules, social contract, etc. - that binds how play processes unfold still strikes me as negotiation, even if it's implicit. It's essentially the code of conduct, terms of service, and social contract of play. Just because we only notice the negotiation during moments of friction, doesn't mean it's not happening constantly.