System - what it is - a Rant

[John Kim]

Y'know, John's right.
...
The process by which the group decides what happens in the game includes the process by which individual players decide what to suggest.  Absolutely!  The rules you're playing by constrain and provoke your input, no question about it.

The important thing that "constrain and provoke your input" and "apportion credibility" have in common is that they're about the interactions of the human beings playing the game.

Cool!!  We are in agreement.  I think there is some element of immersion vs storytelling here.  i.e. Some formulations of the Lumpley Principle only seem to include step #2 in them.  But obviously no matter how social a game is, individuals still have to decide on statements to make.  Conversely, even in the most immersive game, there still needs to be consensus on the shared imagined space.  But there is a difference, I think, in which parts of the process are emphasized.  

So terminology question -- what do we call step #1 and step #2?  Maybe they both fall under the umbrella of Big-S System, and we call #2 Credibility System and #1, er, Decision-Making System?  Actually, I don't think that sounds very good.  Hopefully someone else will have a better idea.

[Valamir]

Hold on.  There are two steps here.  

(1) What statement do I make?  

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?

This seems to be completely compatible with my comparison of system to contract negotiation in another thread.  Your step 1 is the offer and step 2 is the acceptance.

As this is an iterative process of offer, acceptance, offer counteroffer, offer rejection I don't see how you can divide them into seperate parts.  As for what to call them...offer and acceptance seems perfectly logical and descriptive and entirely appropriate.  

Offer here would be synonomous with proposal.  As in "My character climbs the wall" is an offer which essentially translates to "I propose that the my character climbs the wall"

[John Kim]

Hold on.  There are two steps here.  

(1) What statement do I make?  

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?

This seems to be completely compatible with my comparison of system to contract negotiation in another thread.  Your step 1 is the offer and step 2 is the acceptance.

As this is an iterative process of offer, acceptance, offer counteroffer, offer rejection I don't see how you can divide them into seperate parts.

Well, it's potentially iterative, but I would argue that in most functional systems there is no iteration.  i.e. Offers are developed such that they are almost always accepted.  Thus, you do not generally have a player saying "I kill the dragon" -- and the GM rejects his statement with "Oh, no you don't!".  Instead, the player says "I attack the dragon with a (roll) 87 total" and the GM responds "The dragon is badly wounded".  In other words, play proceeds smoothly with zero or very few rejected statements.  

My step #1 is not an offer.  The offer is verbalization to the group, and is thus part of step #2.  Now, contract negotiation is a fine analogy for step #2, but it doesn't have anything in particular to say about step #1.  An analogy that this makes me think of is a social scientist who goes to, say, an advanced mathematics conference.  Now the social scientist will observe all sorts of negotiation, social positioning, and so forth -- and these are all perfectly true.  However, if you look at it purely as social negotiation, then you are missing half of the picture.  i.e. The math.  

Offer here would be synonomous with proposal.  As in "My character climbs the wall" is an offer which essentially translates to "I propose that the my character climbs the wall"

That example is pretty rare in my experience.  In games I see, the player generally proposes "My character tries to climb the wall".  This is unanimously accepted.  He then rolls his skill (possibly prompted by the GM), and the GM informs of the result of his roll -- which again is unanimously accepted.

[Valamir]

Well, it's potentially iterative, but I would argue that in most functional systems there is no iteration.  i.e. Offers are developed such that they are almost always accepted.  Thus, you do not generally have a player saying "I kill the dragon" -- and the GM rejects his statement with "Oh, no you don't!".  Instead, the player says "I attack the dragon with a (roll) 87 total" and the GM responds "The dragon is badly wounded".  In other words, play proceeds smoothly with zero or very few rejected statements.  

Of course, but it is only so because there is a practiced procedure in place that all involved have agreed to follow.  Compare the difference to events in the game that aren't well covered by rule book and see the iterations.

Witness nearly every group of D&D players who've at one point wrestled with the question of whether a fireball has a concussive shock wave, or whether shooting a magic missile at random will hit a nearby invisible foe, or whether you need to make a to hit roll in order to cast a dig spell under the feet of an enemy in combat?  

D&D magic spells are easy to pick on because their writeup is usually far insufficient to cover the wide range of possible use clever players will come up with, but the same idea can be applied to just about any game subsystem (like "what exactly will the GM let me get away with if I make an Acrobatics check?")  

Unless players are complete sheep and never question the GM and never have ideas of their own, there are plenty of example of iterative negotiation in every game session, even if its not articulated in the form of a negotiation.

My step #1 is not an offer.  The offer is verbalization to the group, and is thus part of step #2.  Now, contract negotiation is a fine analogy for step #2, but it doesn't have anything in particular to say about step #1.  

I see.  You're adding the decision step before the offer.  I'd actually then make it three steps because offer and acceptance really are different things.  But your #1 is all of the research and analysis that goes before actually making an offer.

Are you primarily concerned with how to decide what offer to make; Or how to decide what offer is most likely to be accepted?

That example is pretty rare in my experience.  In games I see, the player generally proposes "My character tries to climb the wall".  This is unanimously accepted.  He then rolls his skill (possibly prompted by the GM), and the GM informs of the result of his roll -- which again is unanimously accepted.

I'm not seeing any difference at all in what I said which you call rare, and what you present which you call common.  They seem 100% identicle to me.  

But I think you too strongly say that  "My character tries to climb the wall" is unanimously accepted.  Between that statement and rolling the dice you can have any range of iterations such as:

"wait a minute its not your turn yet"

"sorry, you're still stunned from the confusion spell and can't act"

"ooh...ooh...before he does that I want to shoot my bow"

"Ok, but you'll need to avoid the enemy who's charging at you first"

or

"ok, but the wall is smooth and slippery so that will be -5"
"yeah, but I have my Boots of the Spider and my Gnomish Pitons"
"The Boots will help, but the Pitons are only for mountain climbing"
"no they're not, the description just says +2 to Climbing checks"
"but they mean mountain climbing checks, you don't use Pitons to climb a wall"...etc etc ad naseum.


Each of these are steps in the on going negotiation of what stuff gets updated into the SiS.  Just because a GM says something and the player obediately falls in line without question, don't mistake that for there not being any negotiation.  

GM: "Roll a save vs. Petrification"
Player:  "I got a 12, made it"

Is 100% just as much negotiation as:

GM: "Roll a save vs. Petrification"
Player:  "Really, I don't think I should have to, I'm behind the pillar"
GM:  "Ok, I'll give you +2 for the Pillar, but you still have to make the roll"
Player:  "ok"

The second had more steps, but both are completely defined by offer and acceptance.

[lumpley]

Also add in:

GM: "Roll a save vs. Petrification"
Player: fleeting worried expression, glance at character sheet, hesitation picking up the dice
GM: "...at +2 for the pillar"

Negotiation doesn't have to be verbal.

With Ralph, I don't see how "my character tries to climb the wall" is anything other than the opening of a negotiation where the actual proposal is "let's imagine that my character climbs the wall."

-Vincent

[John Kim]

With Ralph, I don't see how "my character tries to climb the wall" is anything other than the opening of a negotiation where the actual proposal is "let's imagine that my character climbs the wall.

You know, I've seen this a lot -- people who always interpret the player as wanting whatever their character attempts.  i.e. What the player wants is for their PC to always succeed.  But it is also possible for there to be a difference between player and character.  i.e. My PC might attempt something that I the player know is impossible and/or that I don't particularly want to see succeed.  

Now, I have seen this in practice sometimes.  i.e. As a player I say "My character desperately tries to climb that wall."  The GM thinks "Well, the way that it was defined, it seems nearly impossible for John's PC to succeed.  But John wants this, so I'll let the character succeed even though it bends suspension-of-disbelief a little."  She rules that the climbing attempt succeeds.  I as player think "What the hell?  I thought that would be impossible.  Something doesn't make sense."  If it was significant, I might talk to the GM later to straighten this out.  

From my point of view, you should always interpret character intent as only character intent.  If you have questions about what the player wants, ask them OOC.  Don't assume that both intents are the same.

[Valamir]

I'm quite sure Vincent and I are in full agreement with that.

If you're suggesting that there is room for misinterpretation during non verbal negotiation where players are reacting to each others cues and tells, I'm also in full agreement with that.

If you're suggesting that when there is doubt that players should be more open to actual verbalizing their offers and acceptances more precisely rather than rely on tradition and euphemisms and risk miscommunication, then I completely agree with that too.


Now if I suggest that if the player acts worried that it is quite understandable to interpret that as the player being worried...

and if I suggest that if the player only meant to portray his character as being worried while he himself was not, that he should have made the distinction clearer for the benefit of the others at the table,

how would you feel about that?

I think the clarity in communication should be a priority for nearly every social endeavor, roleplaying including...but my suggestions are treading on some pretty hallowed ground for immersionists.

[lumpley]

Full agreement.

-Vincent

[John Kim]

Now if I suggest that if the player acts worried that it is quite understandable to interpret that as the player being worried...

and if I suggest that if the player only meant to portray his character as being worried while he himself was not, that he should have made the distinction clearer for the benefit of the others at the table,

how would you feel about that?

I think the clarity in communication should be a priority for nearly every social endeavor, roleplaying including...but my suggestions are treading on some pretty hallowed ground for immersionists.

I think that's a matter of group contract.  I personally think that it's stupid for me to add a disclaimer to every in-character action saying "Oh, that's what my character thinks, not what I-as-player think."  My habit is that when speaking out-of-character in a non-obvious way, I will mark it with my hands via a "time-out" gesture.  I expect that players should never assume that just because my character feels a certain way that I-as-player feel that way.  If they assume that, well then, they've just got to un-learn that assumption.  If I want to make an OOC feeling known, then I will say it OOC.  If other players want to know what I-as-player think, then they should ask OOC.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi John,

I think your hand gesturing falls exactly into the category of what Ralph is calling clear communication. As I see it, you are agreeing with him in full, without qualification or exception. Your description of having to say "out of character" or otherwise is not what he's talking about.

Best,
Ron

[Apocalypse]

So, all what your saying in your long, long post is:

A System is the way, players play?

Its nothing else, than the system how players choised to do roleplay, or to use some of your termologie, how to determine SIS.

Freaking big news ;)
Isn't this already in the definition of the word System it self?
Way to organize something?


Oh, and Hello from Joe Streetgamer ;)
First post and I already look like an annoying noob *sigh*

[Paganini]

Hey "Joe," welcome to the Forge. :)

So, all what your saying in your long, long post is:

A System is the way, players play?

Sorta. You're coming into the middle of a long term discussion here (by long term, I mean the first post in it was like 2-3 years ago.) So, I recomend you read this thread here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12181

Which says most of what I did a lot more clearly.