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

[Marco]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Callan S.]

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.

[Callan S.]

Heya Marco,

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?

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.

I 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.

[Madeline]

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.

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.

I'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.

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.

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.

[Callan S.]

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.

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.

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.

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.