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!

Noon wrote:
Wow. Flat refusal to negotiate AND a follow up insult! Bippity bam!

Noon wrote: 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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'?

Noon wrote: 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?

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

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.

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.

Noon wrote:
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)?

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?

Noon wrote: 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.

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

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.

Noon wrote: 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).

Noon wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Noon wrote:
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!

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".

Noon wrote: 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.

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".

contracycle wrote:
I believe the problem of game rules which default to "what makes sense" is that they are essentially saying "fight amongst yourselves".

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 wrote: 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.

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.

In fact, internal consistency is one of the major governing factors of SiS.

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.

Noon wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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?

I think one usually expects the logical consequences of one's actions rather than agreeing to them.

Noon wrote: 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.

Noon wrote: I'm not against sense. I'm against it being asked for the wrong way.

Noon wrote: 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.

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.

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.