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

[DannyK]

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.

[John Kim]

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).

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.  

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.

Well, this just reduces it back to the "my guy" issue -- which has been discussed before (for example in the thread, "http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8902">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.

[Callan S.]

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:

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.

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.

[Callan S.]

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?

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)

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.

[Madeline]

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 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?

[beingfrank]

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.

[Callan S.]

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! :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

[Marco]

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

[John Kim]

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".  

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.

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.

[contracycle]

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".

[Marco]

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

[contracycle]

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.

[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.

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

[Callan S.]

Heya again Marco,

I'll actually use Johns example:

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.

(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.

In 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.