Theory Without Jargon - Help for the Desparate - Number 1

[LordSmerf]

Sophist,

Marco is definitely onto something.  Clearly you are reading something in the word "negotiation" that I am not.  The term, to me, has zero implications of winning/losing, it's just how we figure out how to do things in a social context.  "Discussion" also works, but I believe it is too general to be practical.

The "negotiation" we're talking about here is the exact same negotiation that you are involved with when you try to figure out what movie you and your buddies want to watch tonight.

1:"I want to see X"
2:"I want to see Y"
3:"Well, Z is sort of like X and sort of like Y"
1:"Oh, yeah, I'd be willing to watch Z"
2:"Yeah, me too"

Who "won" here?

The point is that players are led to believe they can make up things as they please, and the GM must negotiate with them or accept "i want it"

I'm not sure how you get this at all... let's expand the movie watching thing.

1:"I want to watch X"
2:"We're watching this at 4's house right?"
1:"Yeah"
4:"Don't even ask, you know I don't allow those kinds of movies at my place."
3:"What about Y?"
4:"Nah... I really want to watch Z"
1:"Well, it is your birthday" OR "Well, it is your turn to pick" OR "We always let you pick, so that's cool"

Who wins, who loses?  It's pretty clear that 4 is in the driver seat.  The social situation, for whatever reason, allows him to veto anyone else's suggestion, and the others are required to accept his suggestions.

But that's just the social situation, it's authority distribution.  It doesn't change the fact that "negotiation" is taking place.

Does that make more sense?  Does a clearer definition of what we mean by "negotiation" solve things for you?  Personally, I find it to be a very intuitive use of the word, but both you and Marco indicate that it's not.  Anyone got a suggestion for a better term for this?

Thomas

[Valamir]

I think Negotiation is exactly the right word to use for precisely the reason that its non intuitive.

Which of course is not the same thing as "not correct".

It isn't most what people would think of when they discuss communication in RPGs.  It isn't a word that most people would use if asked to describe the nature of that communication at the table.  It isn't how most people conceive of the events that occur around the table.

Most people are wrong.
Because it IS, in fact, exactly what is going on.

Use a more familiar word and people will skim on through thinking they already know what you're talking about...just as people skim through rulebooks thinking they already know how to play.

Use a word that makes them stop and think "wait-a-minute...negotiation?...how's that work" and you've got their attention.  Hopefully long enough for the concept to register.

[Marco]

Use a more familiar word and people will skim on through thinking they already know what you're talking about...just as people skim through rulebooks thinking they already know how to play.

I don't agree. Ignoring the connotative and common meanings of words is, IMO, a poor strategy to express one's self and have people understand you. It is entirely reasonable and intellectually correct to say that the activity in a poker game is poorly described as negoitation.*

We could just as well say that people involved in an RPG are always engaged in an argument when they play. We could tell people who say that conjures images of angry gamers that they are wrong--but I personally wouldn't blame the reader for that. I'd suggest some changes to the writer.

I think the word, per-se, is okay--but I think as a term it needs to be carefully defined and the specific usage called out as it is non-intuitive. That may actually be being done (I didn't double-check the thread) but I suspect that in some cases terms are getting used in specific counter-intuitive senses here without laying the ground work for doing so.

(which is to be expected: these are drafts and I think Nathan's lookin' for feedback)

-Marco
* I would also argue that it is incorrect to say that a poker game cannot be described as a negoitation though.

[Valamir]

But its NOT ignoring the connotative meanings AT ALL.

Its not immediately intuitive because, as I said, many people wouldn't pick that word off of the top of their head to describe what happens at the table.

But after its explained...it IS exactly what is happening at the table.  The events at the table are every bit as much an ongoing negotiation, in the traditional sense of the word, as any contract discussion going on in a corporate board room.  

For example, when Sophist says:

Maybe so, but negotiation is not a basic building block of any actual game I know of.

He's incorrect.  Negotiation is a basic building block of every game he knows of.  He just isn't used to having the process framed that way and is currently balking at the implications.  But it is PRECISELY that balking that makes using the word so important.  Because it drills right to the heart of some basic assumptions that need to be challenged because they're wrong.

Its exactly the same process, with exactly the same gimmickry, exactly the same "social game" being played, as any contract negotiation.  The word negotiation is not being used to describe something that is not a negotiation...its being used to describe something that absolutely IS a negotiation...but most people just haven't thought about it in those terms before.

[John Kim]

But its NOT ignoring the connotative meanings AT ALL.

Its not immediately intuitive because, as I said, many people wouldn't pick that word off of the top of their head to describe what happens at the table.

But after its explained...it IS exactly what is happening at the table.  The events at the table are every bit as much an ongoing negotiation, in the traditional sense of the word, as any contract discussion going on in a corporate board room.

To me, the word "negotiate" generally implies a back-and-forth process before arriving at consensus.  i.e. If I hand someone a contract and they immediately sign, then I think most people would say that they didn't negotiate.  However, by your usage this was a negotiation.  i.e. In game terms, even if someone says something and it is immediately accepted as part of the fictional reality -- this is still considered "negotiation".

[Marco]

Yeah, looking at the essay, it discusses outright Negotiation as a more "free form" method and rules about who gets to decide what as a more common RPG-centric one. I think that's pretty good really. I was more influenced by the recent threads about "contribution" and dice-fudging.

-Marco

[LordSmerf]

But its NOT ignoring the connotative meanings AT ALL.

Its not immediately intuitive because, as I said, many people wouldn't pick that word off of the top of their head to describe what happens at the table.

But after its explained...it IS exactly what is happening at the table.  The events at the table are every bit as much an ongoing negotiation, in the traditional sense of the word, as any contract discussion going on in a corporate board room.

To me, the word "negotiate" generally implies a back-and-forth process before arriving at consensus.  i.e. If I hand someone a contract and they immediately sign, then I think most people would say that they didn't negotiate.  However, by your usage this was a negotiation.  i.e. In game terms, even if someone says something and it is immediately accepted as part of the fictional reality -- this is still considered "negotiation".

John, do you have a better word for this?  I think "negotiation" is just about right.  There is some potential for confusion (which may have caught Marco, Sophist, and others) in cases where one (or multiple) player's input is never questioned.  But I think "negotiation" can reasonably be applied here, and I've not heard a suggestion for a clearer or more precise word...  Suggestions?

Thomas

[Marco]

The term didn't "catch me"--I am, however, aware that a common conotation of negoitation involves each party with a specific outcome in mind and then there is back-and-forth over that outcome striving for mutual satisfaction.

As, depending on play styles, most (or a great deal) of input to SIS in RPG's may be accepted tacitly, I would be inclined to say that often input is accepted or modified or rejected based on a set of agreements the parties have made by sitting down and getting the game together (most simply, these are "the rules" we're playing by) and that negoitation per se happens when the rules are deemed unclear or inapplciable by one of the parties.

I would also note that "the rules" may be a gross oversimplification since RPG's, although they have rules--as do other games--also can require a great deal of personal judgment on the parts of the players and may not have set goals or "win conditions" making most rule-sets only part of the contract of play the players are under. (etc. etc.)

-Marco

[John Kim]

John, do you have a better word for this?  I think "negotiation" is just about right.  There is some potential for confusion (which may have caught Marco, Sophist, and others) in cases where one (or multiple) player's input is never questioned.  But I think "negotiation" can reasonably be applied here, and I've not heard a suggestion for a clearer or more precise word...  Suggestions?

Hmm.  I'd need some context.  As Marco said, Nathan (Paganini)'s essay at the start of this thread actually uses "negotiate" in more the plain English usage.  I'm fine with this.  I'm also fine with the use of "contribution" in the Part 1 essay -- I just have some nits with the usage in Part 2.  Below are the quotes:

There are a lot of ways that this can happen. Some examples: one player can be designated as a de facto authority who decides such cases, some mechanical procedure is followed (dice are rolled, chips are bid, rock/paper/scisors is played), or the players just negotiate, discussing and revising (just like that fiction author) until a compromise is reached.

This maintainance of continuity is a really big deal. There are many, many ways for a group to operate. The social interactions can be as simple as plain negotiation (freeform play, for example), but it can also be very structured, with different people having the final word on different things. A shared understanding of how continuity is to be maintained is very important for play to be successful.

But for the process as a whole, I think "contribution" is fine.  So (from my other thread), I would say that Will the Writing Guy contributes but does not negotiate.

[NOS]

Just to throw my own two cents in:

I think the term negotiation is just fine.  However, as an essay to the average newcomer, I think you may want to consider introducing the concept in a different order.

I think most people think of the word as generally meaning, as John Kim said, a "back and forth" process, rather than a "sign-this-at-gunpoint" process.  I think the word "negotiation" works for both, if you think of negotiation as a means by which everyone comes to an agreement about something.  

I would say that your standard, heavy GM-power based game uses something along the lines of the gunpoint-style negotiation.  "I dive behind a rock."  "No, you don't.  There are none."  "Oh."  Sure, the metaphorical gunpoint victim doesn't have all that much say in the process, but in the end everyone has signed off on whatever it is.  The negotiation method in such a game is "GM is always right."

I think that the above scenario is more in line with what your stereotypical roleplayer expects from a game.  Of course, in practice you usually get a little more flexibility (calling BS on either side, and so on) but usually with the old standby of GM having "final say."  

So if I'm a random newbie reading this essay:

1. I think of "negotiate" as being something back-and-forth, not at gunpoint.
2. I am accustomed to gunpoint-style play.
3. The first thing I read is that RPG's consist of people "negotiating" about what happens.

Of course, I'm going to be very much in disagreement with the whole shebang, and will be much more skeptical about the rest of the paper.

So I guess my own suggestion (as someone who doesn't really take part in any of the discussion here, but lurks quite a lot) would be to ground the essay more in the "standard" mode of play to begin with, and then subvert that viewpoint gradually.  

For example, explain how when people need to agree on what's happening, the tradition is to use a body of rules and appoint someone as referee over the game.  Go with that for a while, then point out that even though the referee is supposedly all-powerful, in practice they usually aren't.  People can call shenanigans, make suggestions, beg, whine, or just plain walk out.  Point out the same with respect to the rules, and how often they are ignored or changed, based on what the players want.  You now have a toehold with which to convince people that the dictator GM and untouchable ruleset is merely a very restricted, special case of a larger phenomenon.  

That's my idea, anyway.

[J. Tuomas Harviainen]

"Negotiation" is a term commonly used to describe similar processes elsewhere, and in that sense it also fits well here.

For example, it's in use on the social aspects of Winnicott's theory of potential space - which I refered to earlier on this thread - and its applications. That part of the theory is about the creative process between playing children: each kid introducing new elements to the play, others appraising the elements based on how much they like them and how well they fit to what's already been agreed upon, and then accepting them, modifying them or rejecting them from the common "reality" of the play according to those principles. These negotiations are not always made with the intent of mutual satisfaction, and may contain dominance issues that either lead to the play breaking up or one view becoming dominant. Also included is the idea that some forms of play have essential, pre-accepted elements that must be accepted as the immutable basis of any further negotiations. (Referenced from Korkee, 1997)

If that fits the concept of "negotiation" as far as academic speak is concerned, why wouldn't Nathans' almost identical definition of role-playing element construction do so? That is the moment of negotiation. The part Marco would refer to as negotiation is in my opinion interpretation of already-negotiated elements.

[Paganini]

I was out of town for a couple of days, and picked up a really nasty flu bug, so I basically spent the last week in bed. I'm back now, but, sorry for my lateness in getting back to these.

But for the process as a whole, I think "contribution" is fine.  So (from my other thread), I would say that Will the Writing Guy contributes but does not negotiate.

John, we're on the same page here conceptually. I think maybe you missed my intent with that section of the essay, and with my comments about Will the Writing Guy. My intent is not to exclude Will from the game-play process. In fact, it's just the opposite. My intent is to include him, but show how is role is distinct from actual play.

In my content outline for the essay, the Forge jargon word I had planted in that section was "Exploration." Will is not participating in Exploration - the real-time "what the people do" part of the game. In the first essay, all the stuff about making contributions and negotiation and so on is describing how Exploration works. So, Will can't be part of this, by definition. He's the "Writing Guy." He's not part of the exploratory process.

In the second essay, I'm saying that Exploration is not the only source for "imagined stuff." It may the big one - the "what we do when we play" one - but Will the Writing Guy can step in and make stuff up too, by proxy.