The Forge Archives

What really screws up negotiation? Or bargaining on a deal?

Well, I think something like "No, I wont negotiate and anyone who wants to is a fool" would pretty much do it.

Now, if we assume roleplaying session is like a ton of negotiation, what happens if someone says something along the lines of "But it has to make sense"?

Surely everyones encountered variations on this phrase.

But doesn't it just mean: "Well, I wont negotiate on this because it's not up to me, it's up to realism and reality (as I percieve it) determines how it is. In fact, if you can't see the inherant sense in this, what does that say about your IQ?"

Wow. Flat refusal to negotiate AND a follow up insult! Bippity bam!

Yet, "making sense" is encouraged by many RP books and is also something users intuitively reach for to adjudicate a sesson, as well. Basically in direct contradiction to the working requirements of the medium.

In addition, if most users do intutively reach for "what makes sense" rather than "a blend of what we all want", shouldn't RP books directly attempt to dismantle that in their description of use? Basically be a requirement?

Probably just "saying it for myself"...but I don't know, perhaps not!

Quote from: Noon
Wow. Flat refusal to negotiate AND a follow up insult! Bippity bam!

Well, I see accepting stuff that *doesn't* "make sense" as taking a lower price than I'm 'willing to' in your analogy--and the insult you're preciving isn't implied when I ask for plausibility from a game.

The thing is "making sense" doesn't have to be a flat answer. Even in a game with a high commitment to the most realistic outcome (as opposed to simply a plausible one) there is room for discussion. If you can convince me that what you are discussing *does* make sense and you automatically get your wish.

Secondly: What 'makes sens'e may be nearly impossible to ascertain given an imaginary context (a body of canonical fiction, a fantasy world like AD&D's that seems to obey some sets of "unwritten laws," etc.). Let's say that in a Star Wars game a local thug in a backwater planet is posing a threat to the rebellion. The PC's are sent into negoitiate and they protest that the Rebellion, out here--away from the heart of the empire--should be able to smash a local warlord since they can, if they really try, mount an attack on the Empire's entire main battle fleet.

On one hand we have Return of the Jedi's response to Jabba (send in the last surviving member of the royal line of Aldebran dressed as a bountyhunter and armed with a grenade(!?). Send in the last remaining Jedi Knight without his weapon and hope that if he's gotten the better of he will be able to retrive it and break out ... etc.)

Depending on what underlying assumptions the participants make about the action in Return of the Jedi (yes, the Rebel fleet took on the Death Star and it's companion fleet. Yes, the escape plan for Han Solo seemed like the work of a few desparate loners rather than major representatives of a galactic rebellion) then you will likely come to different conclusions about what "makes sense."

When these assumptions are out on the table then you can actually have the "what makes sense" discussion *as* a negiotation--rather than as a stonewalling technique as you describe it.

-Marco

Quote from: NoonYet, "making sense" is encouraged by many RP books and is also something users intuitively reach for to adjudicate a sesson, as well. Basically in direct contradiction to the working requirements of the medium.

In addition, if most users do intutively reach for "what makes sense" rather than "a blend of what we all want", shouldn't RP books directly attempt to dismantle that in their description of use? Basically be a requirement?  

I would say that's the freeform fallacy.  i.e. All role-playing should just be "whatever everyone agrees on" -- and thus that there shouldn't be externally-imposed suggestions or rules (i.e. like "roll these dice" or "stick to this genre" or "do what make sense").  But that's silly.  Role-playing can be freeform, "anything goes" negotiation; but the players also can (and usually do) agree to play within certain predefined limits.  If players agree to do what makes sense in some form, then that is a legitimate argument to make during the game.  This agreement can be explicit -- for example, by agreeing on a rules text which specifies "making sense" as a value.  But it can also be implicit.

QuoteNow, if we assume roleplaying session is like a ton of negotiation, what happens if someone says something along the lines of "But it has to make sense"?

Surely everyones encountered variations on this phrase.

But doesn't it just mean: "Well, I wont negotiate on this because it's not up to me, it's up to realism and reality (as I percieve it) determines how it is. In fact, if you can't see the inherant sense in this, what does that say about your IQ?"

Wow. Flat refusal to negotiate AND a follow up insult! Bippity bam!

Why do you interpret it as closeminded and insulting Callan? I would see it that the other guy's imagination has a level of sincerity and intensity that I'm lacking.

QuoteYet, "making sense" is encouraged by many RP books and is also something users intuitively reach for to adjudicate a sesson, as well. Basically in direct contradiction to the working requirements of the medium.

In addition, if most users do intutively reach for "what makes sense" rather than "a blend of what we all want", shouldn't RP books directly attempt to dismantle that in their description of use? Basically be a requirement?

Perhaps instead the onus is on you to find people you can play with, who all want what you want (or who at least want stuff similar enough for it to blend successfully). Different games for different people, right? Stick to games and groups that don't make those particular demands of the imagination, that demand stuff from you that you're happier to give.

Tony

I've encountered alot more players who wanted to influence the game in their favor behind a very poor veil of "That doesn't make sense!" than gamers who were exceptionaly rigorous in their expectations of genre-appropiateness or realism.

In the latter case, we're not talking about an objective standard away from the gaming table, we're talking about one player wanting his vision trumping the rules and the other player's visions.

Hi Marco,

QuoteWell, I see accepting stuff that *doesn't* "make sense" as taking a lower price than I'm 'willing to' in your analogy--and the insult you're preciving isn't implied when I ask for plausibility from a game.

Emphasis mine.

The important difference between:
"It has to make sense"
and
"For me, that doesn't make sense. I'd prefer not to have that in the game"

It's cool that you don't want to lower your standards. What I'm focusing on here is when people simply say "X has to be there, no negotiation on that" (by saying "It must make sense") rather than "I want this, lets cut a deal". The insult part is important too, but this is the main focus.

QuoteWhen these assumptions are out on the table then you can actually have the "what makes sense" discussion *as* a negiotation--rather than as a stonewalling technique as you describe it.

Err, that's sort of what I'm talking about. Like having RP books help with getting those assumptions on the table rather than users butting heads until finally at some point working out how to do it.

Because plenty of people will say "It must make sense" but they are open to negotiate (even those who feverently believe it must make sense often have some leeway). But the way they've intuitively used to get what they want is not healthy (by itself) for negotiation.


Hi John,
Flip side here: I find 'sense' is the fallacy. It's usually believed that there is some shared knowledge of what sense is and thus this shared knowledge can be relied upon to cover what the book doesn't.

Indeed, that's why the "It has to make sense" line comes up, because people believe in some shared set of knowledge. Ironic, really...why do lines like that come up if such a truely shared knowledge exists? You shouldn't have to ever say it, right?

Or perhaps your just correcting them, because their verson of the shared knowledge is flawed. Of course it's their version that's flawed, not ones own.

Or perhaps its two guys with two opinions/contributions they want to add to the game. And neither should really be questioning the others perceptions of reality, because it's basically quite rude.

I'll pause on this point for the moment as that's quite a few things to discuss already.


Hi Tony,

QuoteWhy do you interpret it as closeminded and insulting Callan? I would see it that the other guy's imagination has a level of sincerity and intensity that I'm lacking.

Well that is how you see it and you manage the negotiation that way. If you want to argue most people see it that way, that's one way to argue it. Personally I'll argue most people percieve themselves as having a firm grasp of reality as well. The adamant Vs the adamant. Where does that leave us?

QuotePerhaps instead the onus is on you to find people you can play with, who all want what you want (or who at least want stuff similar enough for it to blend successfully). Different games for different people, right? Stick to games and groups that don't make those particular demands of the imagination, that demand stuff from you that you're happier to give.

The onus would be on me, if system didn't matter. But make a system that revolves around negotiation but users are solely responsible for figuring out how to get past the hang ups of negotiation...eh?

Also I find the use of the word 'demand' interesting. I mean, if I was comfortable with the idea of demands being made as part of negotiation, I probably wouldn't be posting this.

I think were going to need a mental excercise to seperate out the contentious 'reality/realsm' thing for a moment to make this clearer.

Imagine four people are going to make a clay sculpture together.

They're all there because thier creative input was invited.

Then (as an extreme example, to make clear the point) every time the others try to contribute, one guy says he knows just how clay sculptures are made. He's read tons and tons of books on it. And the way they want to do it, doesn't make sense.

Let's even assume he does know the best way.

So what? If you know the best way, why invite anyone else to contribute to your creation?

And since you have invited them, does your greater knowledge mean you can make statements that have the base message 'It goes this way, no negotiation on it because this is the way that makes sense and thus the true way'?

Quote from: NoonThen (as an extreme example, to make clear the point) every time the others try to contribute, one guy says he knows just how clay sculptures are made. He's read tons and tons of books on it. And the way they want to do it, doesn't make sense.

Let's even assume he does know the best way.

So what? If you know the best way, why invite anyone else to contribute to your creation?

Well, I agree with your example here, but I think it just come from taking an extreme case.  I think it would be better to take a non-extreme case which happens in gaming.  Obviously, if every time someone else opens their mouth, they are shouted down as not making sense, then that's bad.  However, your conclusion from this is "rulebooks shouldn't give advice for things to make sense" -- which I don't agree with.  That advice does not lead to the extreme case.  

I think that trying to make sense can be a positive value, which encourages understanding rather than just negotiation.  That is, if another player says something which makes no sense to me, 99% of the time this is because we are working from different assumptions.  Note that negotiation doesn't require understanding.  Indeed, stereotypically negotiation would suggest that I either get the opposing player to drop it, or give me some benefit to make up for letting his choice through.  But the better solution is to resolve our different understandings.  I think that the vast majority of the time, the participants can agree on what makes sense.  

The point being, I don't think that the suggestion of "making sense" is a bad one.  Yes, someone can try to use the excuse of making sense to shut down other players, but it can also be used in a positive way -- i.e. to promote common understanding.

Noon,

I can dig you saying "I hate gaming with that overbearing guy who never lets anyone else participate"--I'm with you. 100%

Thing is, I don't care what excuse he uses--even if his excuse for being a bully sounds a lot like a point *I* might bring up.

I blame the dude, note the excuse.

-Marco

Hi John,

QuoteWell, I agree with your example here, but I think it just come from taking an extreme case. I think it would be better to take a non-extreme case which happens in gaming. Obviously, if every time someone else opens their mouth, they are shouted down as not making sense, then that's bad.

Detailing an extreme case where the problem is consistant is just to be clear. You don't really need a consistant problem to be a significant problem. I needed to clearly illustrate the conflict involved...how often it happened in my example didn't really matter (except to highlight the problem clearly). All you need is someone pushing their idea of sense over someone elses idea of sense just once or a hand full of times to create more interpersonal conflict than a hobby should contain. Some posters here have various work arounds to this kind of conflict like Tony's "I would see it that the other guy's imagination has a level of sincerity and intensity that I'm lacking.", but I don't see these as common reactions (I might be wrong and this demographic question might be good to tackle).

QuoteHowever, your conclusion from this is "rulebooks shouldn't give advice for things to make sense" -- which I don't agree with. That advice does not lead to the extreme case.

I was only brief on what I ment the rule books should have. By "a blend of what we all want", I mean it should suggest the following replacement, strongly:
"It has to make sense"
with
"For me, that doesn't make sense. I'd prefer not to have that in the game"

It's an important shift to someone saying they as a player want something, rather than telling everyone that 'sense' demands it.

QuoteI think that trying to make sense can be a positive value, which encourages understanding rather than just negotiation. That is, if another player says something which makes no sense to me, 99% of the time this is because we are working from different assumptions. Note that negotiation doesn't require understanding. Indeed, stereotypically negotiation would suggest that I either get the opposing player to drop it, or give me some benefit to make up for letting his choice through. But the better solution is to resolve our different understandings. I think that the vast majority of the time, the participants can agree on what makes sense.

(emphasis mine)

Eww, you mean negotiation doesn't force an understanding to come to pass. If only one of two contributions can be accepted rather than a blend of both, someone has to end up understanding or go and exit the lumpley principle altogether.

Negotiation doesn't require understanding as much as it removes the "your assertion or mine, not both" part. If you keep that "yours or mine" assertion part, you can be pretty damned sure I have to end up understanding the other guy. What else can I do? Exit play? I'd hardly say that promotes understanding but instead demands it for continued play.

While negotiation doesn't need understanding, it pretty much preduces it with "Nah, I can't believe it'd be like that, especially that bit" "Well that bit might be a bit different, but bits X and Y would be this way", etc.

While your stereo type sounds like it lets weakness in, really one can be as adamant in negotiation as you like, which is just like "my assertion or yours, not both". In fact I'd say it's the same thing. The important difference is, instead of saying "my guy"...sorry, wrong term...instead of saying "this perception of sense (I have)" determines whats in the game, you instead get "I want this". It's a personal claim of responsiblity for the assertion.

Just like someone explaining why they did something by placing responsiblity on their character ("My guy"), "My sense" places responsibility on something not part of what's being made...the rest of the world. When someone instead takes responsiblity and say its something they want, it becomes a negotiation between people, rather than a dictation by reality or 'sense' itself.

Yeah, I think the "my guy" thing explains it pretty well. Plenty of honest roleplayers will explain the sense behind their poor contribution to play through their PC...they don't all mean to be destructive. It's just the idea that their PC and not them caused the problems. Similarly with "my sense", it says reality is responsible for this...I'm just reporting the news. No, I say. You assert it, it's your responsiblity.


Hi Marco,

But at what point does it change from someone reporting what makes sense and instead becomes the players responsiblity (so you can actually blame him...you can't blame him if it isn't his responsibility and is instead just something that makes sense)?

Quote from: Noon
Hi Marco,

But at what point does it change from someone reporting what makes sense and instead becomes the players responsiblity (so you can actually blame him...you can't blame him if it isn't his responsibility and is instead just something that makes sense)?

Whenever you think it does--just like any other personal judgment call. If you find that playing with someone is a problem and they're not being reasonable (for whatever reason) you know what to do.

-Marco

Hmmm, I'd like to outline the available immediate responces for the two methods, here:

1. What makes the greatest sense, is used
You can: Try to understand them, try to argue them into understanding you, exit the SIS/game.

2. Each user gives their contribution and one or a mixture of them is used
You can: Try to understand them, try to argue them into understanding you, exit the SIS/game, negotiate your contribution into the one/mixture used.


Sound about right to everybody?

Quote from: NoonHmmm, I'd like to outline the available immediate responces for the two methods, here:

1. What makes the greatest sense, is used
You can: Try to understand them, try to argue them into understanding you, exit the SIS/game.

2. Each user gives their contribution and one or a mixture of them is used
You can: Try to understand them, try to argue them into understanding you, exit the SIS/game, negotiate your contribution into the one/mixture used.


Sound about right to everybody?

I think the first part (1) is missing the idea that a mixture can be used if everyone's input is deemed plausible and doesn't conflict, directly, with some's CA.

In a Virtuality game, certain plausibilities may be, for example, refused by the group if they are obviously engineered for dramatic purposes rather than some attempt at 'realism.'

Just like in a Gamist game someone might refuse the "most realistic" outcome if it refused a good challenge.

This, however, leaves room for everyone's input to be considered even within (1)--it just has to meet the minimum standard of serving whatever CA is preferred and be considered plausible.

-Marco

QuoteI think the first part (1) is missing the idea that a mixture can be used if everyone's input is deemed plausible and doesn't conflict, directly, with some's CA.

Because of the wording though, they can't. Someone has stated 'only something that makes the greatest sense will be accepted'. So even if someone else sounds plausible, if someone trumps them on that topic then that's what you go with.

(if your talking more about something like "jim and bob talked about X and Y, jim was more plausible on X so we go with him on that but bob was more plausible on Y, so we go with him" that isn't a mixture of ideas...it's two seperate examinations. This thread focus on one persons idea of X Vs another persons idea of X)

Personally in regards to your handle on the situation, it sounds like unwritten social contract is at play. To me it looks like your reading "It must make sense" as "Its vital to me that it makes sense...I can only give a minute amount wriggle room on this, for the sake of keeping the game rolling" or something like that. If that's what you read in it, or even if it's something fairly different, that's cool, I like it. The problem is it's unwritten social contract...you might see "It must make sense" and see it that way, but why is someone else going to see it that way without help? The sort of help a roleplay book can give. Sort of like how the books taught us to see 1D20 and realise we should roll a twenty sider, while non gamers scratch their heads.


From what I've seen from poster in this thread, most assertions that "It must make sense" is okay to say seem to, in the examples, mean its short hand for some evaluation process which is like negotiation (tough negotiation, but still negotiation).

I mean, if a GM said "The GM is god" and latter another player says "Nah, nah, nah, he'll listen to you and try and work out something that blends both your ideas" how do you figure out that from "The GM is god"? Likewise "It must make sense" doesn't lead to the idea that person means some form of negotiation. Well, not from my observations...as I've said, perhaps I haven't seen enough and that can be argued.

Well, I guess in my experience, instead of discovering something that "makes the most sense" what you get is one or more arguments about what makes sense. Assuming that X can only go one way or the other then, yes, someone's input will get shut out. If X is a gradient then I think there is room for partial introduction assuming that everyone is working along the same CA.

Player A: "How long will it take to repair this space ship?"

GM: "Hmm ... damage seems fairly severe. I say one week."

Player B: "But the damage all came from one shot--instead of several (and last time it took us 3 days to repair 80% as much). Since logically only one section or component is likely damaged maybe we can replace that faster."

GM: "Or maybe it's destroyed and you don't have the spare parts ..."

Player B: "But we might be able to bypass it. And anyway: airplanes today are built with multiple redundency. Why not space-ships?"

Player C: "My character has a load of scrounging skill. That should logically reduce the time if I can get the right parts."

GM: "Okay, I'll roll. 80% chance you need new parts that you must scrounge but since there's some redundency involved and it was just one hit I, I rule that if you get the parts it's three-days. If I get above 80 you don't need the parts--it's just 3-days."

This is still a commitment to most-plausible as I see it. Each player's arguments are logical and since no one knows what it's like to repair a space-ship then there's no clear "best fit."

One thing that the GM can do is use random rolls (weighted by who's answer "makes more sense") to resolve issues in a way that doesn't result in someone getting shut out but also indicates that we "don't really know for sure who was right."

But: importantly, you don't say what the standard is. In a pulp genre game things that "don't make sense" will happen all the time, with regularity (will anyone argue that Indiana Jones is plausible?)

If the players can agree to a pulp-genre game--or agree to play with plot-protection or other CA's then the idea that something "makes sense" will will necessairly be in context to a given CA or other set of guidelines.

If a player's input is consistently the weakest within those guidelines (and the player agrees with that) I'm not sure what the value is of adding it in unless the player is taking it personally.

-Marco

I think you can draw a parallel to the experience of watching an action movie with friends.  After the movie, as you talk over the story, one of your friends might complain that the villain's plan "didn't make sense" -- for example, the evil plan contradicts everything we know about the fictional world where the story takes place.  

Really, the friend is complaining that the movie's illusion was shattered because the plot was stupid.  Similarly, I think a lot of times disagreements about what "doesn't make sense" in a gaming situation really boil down to "this doesn't fit what I know about the imagined world the game is set in, and it bugs me."  

I think there's another point to be made about the language used in these OOC disputes, and that the argument that something doesn't fit the game world is a lot more productive IMHO than an arguement from mundane reality.

Quote from: NoonDetailing an extreme case where the problem is consistant is just to be clear. You don't really need a consistant problem to be a significant problem. I needed to clearly illustrate the conflict involved...how often it happened in my example didn't really matter (except to highlight the problem clearly). All you need is someone pushing their idea of sense over someone elses idea of sense just once or a hand full of times to create more interpersonal conflict than a hobby should contain.  Some posters here have various work arounds to this kind of conflict like Tony's "I would see it that the other guy's imagination has a level of sincerity and intensity that I'm lacking.", but I don't see these as common reactions (I might be wrong and this demographic question might be good to tackle).

I think it is unavoidable that you are going to get conflicts among what players think.  The question is how you want to resolve it.  There are two sorts of approaches here:

1) "That doesn't make sense" vs. "Yes, it does"
2) "I want it this way" vs. "I want it that way"

Resolving via #1 means exposing how you think.  The contest will generally go in favor of the person who gives the most convincing logical argument.  In my experience, this is an illuminating process in itself, because it shows how someone thinks the game-world works.  Resolving via #2, on the other hand, is an emotional appeal.  The contest will generally go in favor of the person who can person who is most emotionally attached to what they want to see.  

Both approaches can be done politely, in my opinion.  i.e. I can have a polite argument with someone over what makes sense -- both inside and outside of gaming.  

Quote from: NoonYeah, I think the "my guy" thing explains it pretty well. Plenty of honest roleplayers will explain the sense behind their poor contribution to play through their PC...they don't all mean to be destructive. It's just the idea that their PC and not them caused the problems. Similarly with "my sense", it says reality is responsible for this...I'm just reporting the news. No, I say. You assert it, it's your responsiblity.

Well, this just reduces it back to the "my guy" issue -- which has been discussed before (for example in the thread, "Anti-my-guy Syndrome").  Still, I'm not sure we're talking eye-to-eye here.  I suspect an example would help.  So I picture some PCs in a fantasy game are flying to a mountain top where a thunder giant is.  

GM: The thunder giant is about to cast lightning at you, Anne.
Player 1 (Anne): Shit!  I'm activating my anti-magic shield.
GM: OK, it works.  Since the shield is automatic, the lightning dissipates harmlessly against it.
Player 2 (Bob): Ummmm, Anne?  When you activate that, it will cancel the flight spell on you and you'll fall to the bottom of the cliffs.
Player 1(Anne): What the hell, Bob?  You're trying to kill my character.  
Player 2 (Bob): No, I'm not.  I'm just pointing out the logical consequence.  

While I don't offhand recall a specific case like this, this sort of exchange seems pretty familiar to me.  Does this fit what you are talking about?  I realize that it is a biased example, but it shows how I think about "making sense".  I'd encourage you to give another example of the sort of situation you are picturing.  In this case, I don't think it is helpful to force Bob to say that he wants Anne's PC to die, and then resolve this as negotiation between their opposing positions.  Because as I see it, that doesn't accurately portray Bob's position.

Heya Marco,

I think the high variables of that situation forces negotiation, much like shades of grey in the real world doesn't really allow good/bad moral judgements and forces negotiation. I think that's good gaming, but it came from a bunch of game elements introduced by the users, not the book. So the users insterted a ton of stuff and solved the problem I see here. The book/its author didn't.

Now, I haven't really had the proper context to describe what a contribution is as yet, but this quote of yours lets me:

QuoteIf a player's input is consistently the weakest within those guidelines (and the player agrees with that) I'm not sure what the value is of adding it in unless the player is taking it personally.

I consider a mere grunt of acceptance a contribution. Acceptance is contribution, I think. It's pretty much the lowest level of contribution, but still significant.

What I mean by someone saying "It must make sense" and only X or Y being accepted and not both, is this: The statement and its raw wording demands one thing goes and not the other.

It's saying sense has to come first, whether you like it or not. Whether you contribute your acceptance to it or not.

Maybe I've got the lumpley principle wrong, but I think that's a direct contradition to it. In roleplay, you just can't say 'I don't need your acceptance of my assertions'...it's screwy!

Now, by saying "It must make sense" some people mean they will negotiate but it'll be tough negotiation. That's fine to push for, but really the above phrase (or variants on it) used to indicate this doesn't do so very well at all. I think there is plenty of room for miss-understand there, don't you? The sort that can make newbies leave forever, that sort of miss-understanding. The sort of thing the RP book could help clear up immensely. (by miss-understanding I mean 'I don't need your acceptance of my assertions' appears to be conveyed)

While others who say "It must make sense" actually do mean it. They mean one way goes whether the other person likes it or not.

I think the urge for things to make sense in a RPG is natural and reflexive. And I think all RPG's need to guide it.

Hiya John,

Well, it can be as polite as you like. But if it's "X or Y not both and that's whether you like it or not", it's saying this assertion doesn't need your consent to exist. It can be polite, but it still doesn't work.

But really, by "The contest will generally go in favor of the person who gives the most convincing logical argument" (emphasis mine) it sounds more like a negotiation form where you just sell your idea as much as possible, highlighting its nifty logic, etc. It's not a 'the world is flat or round: we will prove this, not negotiate this' sort of method.

Really, from the feedback to this thread it seems something like that is what posters uses and mean by this phrase. That's cool...but I really think for the sake of newbies, this should be covered. Do they nessersarily understand the connotations of the phrase to engage it properly?

QuotePlayer 1(Anne): What the hell, Bob? You're trying to kill my character.
Player 2 (Bob): No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the logical consequence.

(emphasis mine)

As I've been harping on, the wording is vital. In your example, see how you've made him claim it as his own assertion and thus NOT something that must come to pass whether Anne accepts it or not. In fact it's almost just saying "This is what I think...what do you think". I think this is a reflection of your own (good) negotiation skills you've developed for roleplay, that even come out in the example. But I'm pretty sure such skills are not entirely innate in any significant demographic, their learned...that's why I think RP books need to guide this.

If he'd said something like "It cancels your flight spell. (Now that's established) now we go on to work out falling damage." it's really says Annes contribution of acceptance isn't needed (which is wack, see my post to Marco).

If he'd said "It makes sense and sense has to happen", it's even more explicit that Annes acceptance isn't needed.

BTW: On the anti my guy thread, I'd say the player got upset at your policeman PC because it set a precedent that any PC can beat up another players PC/contribution without asking permission. I don't think he detected the unspoken permission you got from the other player. Which shows how wording (or lack thereof) is important for people to understand how the system works.

Hi, Noon!  It sounds like what you're concerned about is someone discarding the gentleman's agreement, your explanation of which on the GM Refusal to Explain Ruling (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=11575) thread was one of the first things that impressed me at the Forge.  I'm surprised that you see the statement "it must make sense" as a direct highway to "your agreement is no longer required," with an insult to boot.

I've never seen "wait, that doesn't make sense" as anything but a call for clarification; and thus the broader form, "it must make sense" means "I must understand, and be a part of the formation of, the game."  To me it looks like a way of stating a very common social contract.

How this comes about:
DM: There are seven ogres surrounding you.
Player: That doesn't make sense—I had Morden Kaiten's Magical Watchdog cast!

If the GM thinks, "How dare he tell me I'm too stupid to run my own world!"  Well... yeah, suddenly there's no negotiation possible.  But I'm not thinking that's an issue with what the player said.

And what if the GM then says, "Well, it makes sense to me.  Now let's keep the game moving."  Then the player has no idea what the world is about...  Does Morden Kaiten's Magical Watchdog not work on ogres?  Is his character in a magic-sapping environment?  Did that gypsy sell him rotten spell components?  The gameworld makes no sense.  But the player's world makes perfect sense...  It's a world where his contributions to the game matter so little that it makes no difference whether he has any idea what's going on.  Which tends to gall.

Thus, people require that things make sense.

I hope I didn't miss the point of your post.  I mean, if yours is a social contract concern, shouldn't it hinge on more than just one phrase?

I'm not sure I see exactly what Noon is getting at, but I think it's similar to things I've also thought myself.

It's not so much that someone says "that has to make sense," but they also say "things have to make sense, they must make sense according to the criteria that I define, these criteria are self-evident to anyone of sense, and any requests for negotiation on the matter are invalid because you're disagreement with these self-evidently right statements automatically diagnoses you as a moron not worth negotiating with."  That's not about things making sense, that's about power.  About who gets to contribute to the SIS, and one person (GM or player) trying to wrest control of the conditions by which things get added to the SIS.  That is, for me, a problem.  How to solve it is another problem.

If this is not related to what Noon is talking about, please ignore.

Hi Madeline, welcome to the forge! :)

I'm glad my post left a good impression of the forge! :) And now, into the meat of the matter, and forgive me for quoting you alot...it saves me setting up context! :)

QuoteI'm surprised that you see the statement "it must make sense" as a direct highway to "your agreement is no longer required," with an insult to boot.

Imagine a group who has established a social contract where one can yell "THAT SUCKS!" and the rest laugh and they then work out something together (that's their contract). Now imagine one player goes to another group...is his "THAT SUCKS!" accepted the same way? Well no, because it's not established in their contract.

Likewise, I'm suggesting that many people will see "It must make sense!" as almost being as blunt and confronting as "That sucks!". By many people I'm refering to newbies and people without many years in the hobby, who haven't ironed out a good social contract framework. I'm guessing many at the forge have lots of RP years behind them and don't see a problem here because of their experience.

QuoteI've never seen "wait, that doesn't make sense" as anything but a call for clarification; and thus the broader form, "it must make sense" means "I must understand, and be a part of the formation of, the game." To me it looks like a way of stating a very common social contract.

It could indeed be very common social contract, I'm wondering about that. I'm just pretty certain that I've avoided variations on the phrase becase many of the people I've RP'ed with would find it confronting. The same sort of way "that sucks" would confront them.

QuoteAnd what if the GM then says, "Well, it makes sense to me. Now let's keep the game moving." Then the player has no idea what the world is about... Does Morden Kaiten's Magical Watchdog not work on ogres? Is his character in a magic-sapping environment? Did that gypsy sell him rotten spell components? The gameworld makes no sense. But the player's world makes perfect sense... It's a world where his contributions to the game matter so little that it makes no difference whether he has any idea what's going on. Which tends to gall.

Thus, people require that things make sense.

Ummm, I'd say no. What galls there is what I've already noted, the GM hasn't asked for acceptance, hasn't even tried to entice acceptance with explanation. He just said he didn't need it.

I'm not against sense. I'm against it being asked for the wrong way.

QuoteI hope I didn't miss the point of your post. I mean, if yours is a social contract concern, shouldn't it hinge on more than just one phrase?

Much like "IT SUCKS!" isn't built into most social contract as a negotiation starter, I think "It must make sense" or anything else confrontational isn't built in as a starter either. Yet it is a phrase that people will intuitively use. The RP books can help with this phrase initiating negotiation in the social contract.

I don't think you need this, or many of the other posters here. But then again, many people who roleplay don't post on the internet at all. Many don't have the years of RP experience forge members (I assume) do.  And many others have walked away from RP because of unneeded confrontation in games, which we wont hear from either.

Heya Claire,

What you describe is part of this discussion. But I don't think it's just something people decide to do. It's an extension of the problem where they assert hard because just as much as as they want to push in their idea of sense over someone elses, they fear someone else will do the same to them.

A person like this obviously didn't have any support to develop some other method. And now he's shifted into this aggresive stance which he'll find very difficult to get out of by himself.

And I think these guys are scattered all over the hobby, giving older gamers a hard time and scaring off the newbies. I think I've got one in a PBP of mine, at the moment, for example.

Quote from: Noon
Maybe I've got the lumpley principle wrong, but I think that's a direct contradition to it. In roleplay, you just can't say 'I don't need your acceptance of my assertions'...it's screwy!

Noon,
Maybe you can give me some dialog that shows what you're imagining--a real case where someone has valid input that is politely (and with explanation) refused by another person for bogus sense-related reasons.

As for the LP, I think you have it wrong: people's input gets rejected all the time ("I climb the wall!" "Dude, it's a sheer surface and you don't have climbing skill.")

In fact, internal consistency is one of the major governing factors of SiS.

That's why I said (a while ago) that Setting *is* System. Now there was much made of Setting being the time component and stuff--but essentially, once a fact is introduced into SiS that fact becomes "a new rule" that can prevent other pieces data entering into the SiS.

In short the LP provides the mechanism for doing exactly what you said it doesn't: SiS + LP = the basis to reject things that violate internal consistency.

-Marco

I still think that this is a potential problem with any game rule or advice.  If something is in the rules, then a participant can try to claim authority because "It's in the rules".  They then use this to try to shut down anyone else's input.  The same goes for any other explicit advice or social contract point, like "It has to make sense" or "It has to fit the genre".  

Quote from: NoonI don't think you need this, or many of the other posters here. But then again, many people who roleplay don't post on the internet at all. Many don't have the years of RP experience forge members (I assume) do.  And many others have walked away from RP because of unneeded confrontation in games, which we wont hear from either.

Can you give a clearer outline of what your proposed solution to the problem is?  My impression is that you believe this is encouraged in role-playing rulebooks, and there needs to be different advice text to counter this "bane of the hobby".  Perhaps you could refer to a section of the rules which does this (i.e. a section of the GURPS rules, say), and then present your opposing text of how it should read.

In another thread, Ravien and I disagreed opver whether mass movements are symptomatic of leaders or vice versa.  If we were in the same game, and one of us was empowered through system to make a credible statement, he or I might nonetheless find that statement in-credible.

If we have a constructive discussion about why we hold our positions, we MIGHT be able to come to a consensus, or might not.  However, if one of us persists in asserting only that "it doesn't make sense", then no progress will be made.

And that is the basis, I think, for the claim that "it doesn't make sense" is basically a power play in which the speaker arrogates to themselves the role of sole arbiter of what makes sense, and declares the others view inherently and obviously invalid, with all the negative connotations outlined above.

Please note that there is no subtext or hidden agenda to this post; I use this example only as it is (probably) a genuine difference in worldview, and because it happened in this venue not long ago.

I believe the problem of game rules which default to "what makes sense" is that they are essentially saying "fight amongst yourselves".

Quote from: contracycle
I believe the problem of game rules which default to "what makes sense" is that they are essentially saying "fight amongst yourselves".

This is clearly the case when:
1. the people involved hold absolute views on a topic -- and --
2. there is no moderator.

Fortunately most people's views are not absolute on every topic (and if you run into someone who does hold absolute views on every topic, again, you know what to do) and there is usually a moderator (the GM). In the case where the GM is one of the people arguing the chances of another person getting their input past him or her is, truly, not all that good--but being a GM is an elected position and is certainly impeachable.

-Marco

Marco, are you unable to recognise differences of opinion without tarriung them as "absolute"?  Absolute is just another value judgement.  I said nothing about absolute views, only honestly held ones.

Quote from: contracycleMarco, are you unable to recognise differences of opinion without tarriung them as "absolute"?  Absolute is just another value judgement.  I said nothing about absolute views, only honestly held ones.

Contracycle: you described someone saying "it doesn't make sense" as a "power play in which the speaker arrogates to themselves the role of sole arbiter of what makes sense, and declares the others view inherently and obviously invalid, with all the negative connotations outlined above."

(Emphasis added)

I think that if you're going to allow beliefs that are honestly held but amenable to change and discussion into the mix then you might want to re-assess that section of yours I quoted.

If we as participants are willing to change our beliefs based on discussion why need our group (and again, I quote you) "fight amongst yourselves"? (Emphasis added since we seem to be distinguishing things--like a fight from a discussion).

If we're not willing to change them, then why is describing them as "absolute" tarring?

-Marco

Heya again Marco,

I'll actually use Johns example:

QuoteGM: The thunder giant is about to cast lightning at you, Anne.
Player 1 (Anne): Shit! I'm activating my anti-magic shield.
GM: OK, it works. Since the shield is automatic, the lightning dissipates harmlessly against it.
Player 2 (Bob): Ummmm, Anne? When you activate that, it will cancel the flight spell on you and you'll fall to the bottom of the cliffs.
Player 1(Anne): What the hell, Bob? You're trying to kill my character.
Player 2 (Bob): No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the logical consequence.

(emphasis mine)

Now John said this is a pretty typical exchange. I'll point out the first bolded word 'will'...but first I need to establish something about that.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote before...I didn't mention contribution (like "My PC climbs the wall") having to be accepted. I directly refered to the acceptance of assertions. Which is the lumpley principle if I'm reading the glossary right "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

This thread has helped me refine what I should be refering to. At first I thought a blend of contributions was needed, not one person or the other. Then I realised the basic core needed (which is part of the blend I first refered to) is, after negotiation, mutual acceptance of each others assertions (as modified by negotiation).

If we look at the glossary again  "System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play." and assuming I'm reading it right (hey, I may not be, take it up as a point if needed), if you start using language which context is that the other persons agreement is not needed, it goes wrong.

For example, in the sample the word 'will' is used. Then the other player gets aggrovated at this. It's a fictional example but as John said, quite typical. What that player is aggrovated about is being cut out of the loop...and they express it.

So what happens next? The player who expressesed it changes it to something he is just saying, something that requires the other players agreement. He changes it from something that happens whether she agrees or not, to something which does indeed require agreement.

She may indeed be screwed by using the anti magic shield, but you still need her acceptance of it. It might seem the same, to say 'this WILL happen" and "this should happen, if it's okay with you", so there's no point in differentiating them. But given the requirements of the medium, it isn't the same, they're drastically different.

QuoteIn fact, internal consistency is one of the major governing factors of SiS.

Sorry, I can't continue on your latter points as I don't agree. "Internal consistancy can be important to individuals in a gaming group", I agree with.

Noon,
I looked for a while at John's text--and I have to say that I don't agree with your analysis. Specifically, I don't agree with your assessment of the (hypothetical) psychology of the player.

Quote from: Noon
For example, in the sample the word 'will' is used. Then the other player gets aggrovated at this. It's a fictional example but as John said, quite typical. What that player is aggrovated about is being cut out of the loop...and they express it.

It looked to me like the player was mad about it being pointed out that their actions were about to be responsible for their own character's death. I think if you read it as being cut out of the loop that's something you're bringing in. I wouldn't be pleased about that situation myself (discovering my defensive move would result in my death)--but not because I was cut out of the decision making process.

If Player B said: "Ooh! You've used that spell for the 10th time--that means you will go up a level in it!" do you see the first player having the same complaint?

If not, then consider that the anger is probably more about the consequences than the method.

Quote
So what happens next? The player who expressesed it changes it to something he is just saying, something that requires the other players agreement. He changes it from something that happens whether she agrees or not, to something which does indeed require agreement.

Again: not how I see it. I see it as he's expressing no wish for or enjoyment of her character's death. He's not, IMO, asking for her acceptance of his assertion. He calls it a logical consequence.

I think one usually expects the logical consequences of one's actions rather than agreeing to them.

Quote

QuoteIn fact, internal consistency is one of the major governing factors of SiS.

Sorry, I can't continue on your latter points as I don't agree. "Internal consistancy can be important to individuals in a gaming group", I agree with.

Well, what governs how you make decisions as a GM? Where does plausibility factor in to the equation? Anywhere? If not, do your games run like dreamscapes?

-Marco

Contracycle is pretty dead on. I'll put it in my own words as well.

Lets take two reasonable men who believe in something with a fair amount of conviction.

Now, let's assume these two men believe something different from each other, but only one belief on the matter can apply and the other will need to accept that.

Lets even assume that they could actually come to some arrangement without too much effort.

Now, the question is, is it possible for innocuous (by themselves) words to get in the way of this negotiation and hamstring it? Even turn it into something less than pleasant? Particularly as its about the topic of belief? Or do good people always understand each other?


Heya John,

I think leaving people in the wilderness as to how to handle negotiation is worse than giving advice that someone might try to use incorrectly as leverage in negotiation. Even if it isn't, shying from something because people might missuse it is pointless. People will always missuse stuff...how big a demographic of people will do so, is what's important.

My focus wasn't entirely on what the books say, it was mostly about how people handle negotiation. Having a quick look around now, I can't find much in any of the books close at hand. I can't shake the feeling there a little things here and there that say it, but for overt example I seem to be wrong.

Heya Marco,

QuoteIf Player B said: "Ooh! You've used that spell for the 10th time--that means you will go up a level in it!" do you see the first player having the same complaint?

You will if player B reaches over and starts adjusting player A's character sheet for her. In the above case saying it will go up still requires the player to scribble on her character sheet/consent. The word 'will' isn't bad by itself.

QuoteI think one usually expects the logical consequences of one's actions rather than agreeing to them.

Yes, but that's the confusion roleplayers impose on themselves. There is no action so there is no reaction/consequence. It may look like acceptance is not needed for each consequence because hey, consequences just happen, right? Whether you like it or not, right?

Well no. This is just a group of people negotiating. If you remove the RP color and say their bargaining the price of potatoes, one person can't say (and realisticly expect it to stick without consent) "as a consequence of X, you have to accept this price for your potatoes. It's a consequence, so I don't need your consent...even though, uh, this is a negotiation."

If we both don't agree and work from this point, I don't think we can get anything out of each other. Besides, I'm starting to sound whiney "You don't understand...I must be heard" rather than really advancing, which is usually an indicator to ruminate on things awhile.

Probably time for everyone to do a wrap up, unless others feel were advancing here.

Quote from: NoonLikewise, I'm suggesting that many people will see "It must make sense!" as almost being as blunt and confronting as "That sucks!". By many people I'm refering to newbies and people without many years in the hobby, who haven't ironed out a good social contract framework.

Your bit about group-specific phrases is too true...  It's a damn shame when different modes of communication accidentally throw a wrench into a discussion.

Seems to me, though, that you're suggesting here writing your view of a phrase into law, which is kinda unfair.  I got carried away last post describing how a person could (and actually, how I do) say "it must make sense" and mean the exact opposite of your interpretation of the phrase.

Quote from: NoonI'm not against sense. I'm against it being asked for the wrong way.

I think warning people away from the "it must make sense" phrase would have the unintended consequence of confusing them about the goodness of sense itself in a game.

I don't think it's a phrase that would scare newbies away; I imagine people saying, "Well, um, if you're going to pretend you're wizards and elves, I guess it is best if it makes sense..."  I think an aversion to "it must make sense" is a learned aversion, something that only springs up after you've run into an immovable object who uses that phrase.

Quote from: NoonMuch like "IT SUCKS!" isn't built into most social contract as a negotiation starter, I think "It must make sense" or anything else confrontational isn't built in as a starter either. Yet it is a phrase that people will intuitively use. The RP books can help with this phrase initiating negotiation in the social contract.

I don't think you need this, or many of the other posters here.

Aw.  You're kind; but I've been as stupid as anyone about getting stuck into a "my way is the one true way" mindset in a game...  And, realizing this, I think you're onto something really good, these thoughts about how to cultivate negotiation.

I'd suggest a more direct approach to the problem presented in this thread, which I believe is a gamer digging in his heels and refusing to accept any other way forward but the one he's thought of.  Perhaps an emphasis in the rulebook that the greatest glory of gaming is for a group of people to all contribute to an outcome that they all enjoy.  Something recently pointed out to me is that from any point, there aren't just one or two possible ways to go forward, there are a whole fan of them; and if you can only see one good way forward, there's something very wrong, and it's probably you.

One thing I really like in gamebooks are written-out-dialog examples of play; it'd be nice to see examples of "standing down and finding a way to a mutually agreeable place," as well.

But I think I'm getting off-topic.  As for tendentious language, I'd think it'd be better to not list it out, since different people mean different things by common words like "sense", and it's no good suggesting to people, in a situation where you're trying to get mutual agreement, that they should be insulted by something.

Also, positively, how would you suggest initiating a "this latest twist makes no sense and I dislike it" situation in a better way?  I think it's a great idea for a RP book to offer phrases that don't immediately tick people off, but I'm not sure what they would be.

QuoteI'd suggest a more direct approach to the problem presented in this thread, which I believe is a gamer digging in his heels and refusing to accept any other way forward but the one he's thought of.

I think it's quite likely that many dig their heels in not because their bad but because of a communication failure and not realising they can work something out.

QuoteOne thing I really like in gamebooks are written-out-dialog examples of play; it'd be nice to see examples of "standing down and finding a way to a mutually agreeable place," as well.

This is almost exactly what I mean! In fact, it's possibly better since all RPG's need more examples of play.


Anyway, I'll give a rough example of what I mean, that a few posters asked for. I was afraid to do it before because my poor writing might get the whole idea shot down, which wouldn't be fair. Now I'm wrapping up, it's no problem.


"It must make sense"

Sense is usually very important to most gamers at the table. But at some point you might find that someone else is doing something or about to, that doesn't make sense to you.

What is important to note is that the other person thinks what their doing makes sense as well. If you say "It must make sense" it can imply that what makes sense to you has to happen, while what makes sense to them isn't sense at all.

Really, if both of you believe it should happen in a certain way, it indicates that you should both try and work out something between you. This could mean that you use a mix of each others idea of what makes sense. Or it could mean that you both listen to each other, with the idea that only one idea of what makes sense will be used. Be honest when discussing this, and enter into discussion truely ready to accept that your idea of sense might not be used and that while you might not be 100% convinced of the other persons arguement, you can atleast agree to something that's almost as convincing, so as to let play continue. Note: If you keep finding yourself having to accept such arguements, it's possible your style doesn't mesh with the other players. Even if they're your friends, it doesn't mean you will all mesh in terms of playing this game (sort of like how some people like hot foods and others don't...you can't share the same meal, then, can you?).

The important thing to remember is to not dig your heels in on an issue because no one else is seeing the sense you see. Communicate, communicate, communicate! And a little compromise. Compromise can be a little irritating, but as what you get from group is more than that, it's worth it. And if it isn't, like not enjoying the same meal, it's okay not to play the game with a certain group. Nobody is is wrong...your all just enjoying different things.