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

[prabe]

"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.

Yeah. I think I've been clear-ish that my problem was with the word "negotiation," not really the broader idea. Having figured out to my own satisfaction why, I'm OK with where I am--and I'm more than OK leaving other people to argue about it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Arbitration is a type of negotiation, usually with a (supposed) disinterested moderator. Mechanics often fulfill this role, but it's important to note that this arbitration is between players -- the GM is not the arbitrator in this concept, they're a participant.

 

[Ovinomancer]

With all due respect, no.



Stop making this personal.

With all due respect, yes, this is exactly what happened. I mean, you went to the effort to snip out the next part, which is, I assume, what you wanted to disagree with, and left this as a mangled communication. With the spice of the typically passive aggressive "all due respect" to boot. I mean, it's pretty obvious exactly how much respect you think I'm due. Especially with the quick tone argument at the end.

 

[prabe]

Arbitration is a type of negotiation, usually with a (supposed) disinterested moderator. Mechanics often fulfill this role, but it's important to note that this arbitration is between players -- the GM is not the arbitrator in this concept, they're a participant.

Arbitration is dispute-resolution (which is why I'm comparing going to mechanical resolution as "arbitration") but there's really no negotiation in the process, as I understand it. The sides make their cases, and the arbitrator decides; it's much more like a judicial process. Mediation is another kind of dispute-resolution, which is explicitly a kind of facilitated negotiation, where the mediator is also presumed to be neutral.

 

[Umbran]

With all due respect, yes, this is exactly what happened.

Let me review in short, one last time.

Pemerton: quote from lumpley
Emirikol: "I wouldn't subscribe to that philosophy at all..."
Pemerton: "It's not a philosophy. It's an assertion..."
Umbran: "When he gets to asserting the 'sole' function is this negotiation, that's philosophy. "
Ovinomancer: jumps on Umbran for supposed strawman

So, I repeat, no, you are incorrect about what happened. Really, it is time to let it go.

I mean, you went to the effort to snip out the next part, which is, I assume, what you wanted to disagree with, and left this as a mangled communication. With the spice of the typically passive aggressive "all due respect" to boot. I mean, it's pretty obvious exactly how much respect you think I'm due. Especially with the quick tone argument at the end.

Second time - stop making this personal.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Arbitration is dispute-resolution (which is why I'm comparing going to mechanical resolution as "arbitration") but there's really no negotiation in the process, as I understand it. The sides make their cases, and the arbitrator decides; it's much more like a judicial process. Mediation is another kind of dispute-resolution, which is explicitly a kind of facilitated negotiation, where the mediator is also presumed to be neutral.

Your definitions are correct, except for the claim that these aren't kinds of negotiations.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let me review in short, one last time.

Pemerton: quote from lumpley
Emirikol: "I wouldn't subscribe to that philosophy at all..."
Pemerton: "It's not a philosophy. It's an assertion..."
Umbran: "When he gets to asserting the 'sole' function is this negotiation, that's philosophy. "
Ovinomancer: jumps on Umbran for supposed strawman

So, I repeat, no, you are incorrect about what happened. Really, it is time to let it go.

Oh, good, another strawman. Here's the chain of responses, including only those that discuss the topic of the quote, starting with post 121:

pemerton at 121
aramis erak
Campbell
Fenris-77
Campbell
Fenris-77
Emerikol
Emerikol
Ovinomancer
Emerikol
Ovinomancer
S'mon
Emerikol
prabe
Ovinomancer
Ovinomancer
pemerton
Campbell
pemerton -- this is the post you quoted
prabe
Ovinomancer
Hawkeyefan
Umbran -- here is your response

Now, what @pemerton said in that quoted post was:

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

And you responded:

When he gets to asserting the "sole" function is this negotiation, that's philosophy.

Your assertion here is that it should have been expected that everyone understand that you were referring to a post two pages prior and not the one you quoted.

Good, now that's settled.

Second time - stop making this personal.

With all due respect, sure.

 

[Umbran]

Oh, good, another strawman.

In this context, a strawman is a misrepresentation of someone else's position. Here, I was stating the events from my own perspective, and made no claim on anyone else's. So, no strawman. Not at the start of this nonsense (when I was really just expressing an opinion on where the practical stops and philosophy starts), and not now.

Your assertion here is that it should have been expected that everyone understand that you were referring to a post two pages prior and not the one you quoted.

My assertion was and is that I (and implied, folks in general) shouldn't be accused of strawman arguments for such things. As for expectations - I saw my original comment as an aside or footnote, so my expectation was that folks who didn't find it valuable would ignore it, honestly.

This mountain from that molehill.

 

[S'mon]

Your definitions are correct, except for the claim that these aren't kinds of negotiations.

When everything is a negotiation, nothing is.

 

[dragoner]

When everything is a negotiation, nothing is.

What would you call "discussion aimed at reaching an agreement"?