"It has to make sense" secret bane of the hobby?

[Callan S.]

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!

[Marco]

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

[John Kim]

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?  

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.

[Tony Irwin]

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!

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.

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?

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

[sirogit]

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.

[Callan S.]

Hi Marco,

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Callan S.]

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'?

[John Kim]

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?

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.

[Marco]

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

[Callan S.]

Hi John,

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.

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).

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 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.

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.

(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)?

[Marco]

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

[Callan S.]

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?

[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?

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

[Callan S.]

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.

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.

[Marco]

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