Into Negotiative Mechanics
Thanks to Jay Dragon, who named the concept and gave lots of feedback on this essay.
Negotiative mechanics are game mechanics that are facilitated and resolved via negotiation between players. They are neither mathematical, nor governed by arbitrary categories defined in the game text. Let's start with an example:
Let’s say you wanted to, in game terms, describe a mighty and towering giant with a difficult to pierce hide:
Using numerical mechanics, you can give the giant a really large hit point total to reflect its size and a really large defense bonus to reflect its hide.
This giant would be attacked by trying to add together numbers to deal more damage.
Using pre-defined categories, you can say the giant is large and immune to slashing, piercing, and blunt damage.
This giant would be attacked by choosing a source of damage that isn’t within the list of damages it's immune to.
Using a negotiative mechanic, you can say that the giant cannot be harmed by manmade weapons.
This giant would be attacked by figuring out how to use something other than a manmade weapon to strike it.
In this example, the first two have a clear-cut mechanical solution built in. They are solved problems: given enough mechanical knowledge of the game, the solutions are a simple math problem or look at your character sheet away. By spelling out the solution in mechanics, they are priming the player to think about the problem through the lens of corresponding mechanics.
The third mechanic is what I’d call a negotiative mechanic.
Rules-narrative interactions in RPGs can be thought of through the lens of encoding and decoding game information. There exists the story, expressed through human language, and the game-state, expressed through permutations of mechanics and parameters that exist within the rules text. They need to talk to each other, but represent two different interpretations of the game’s world.
The standard flow of information in a Tabletop RPG mechanic is as follows: There exists a situation which has both a story and game-state representation. There are objects that have both story and game state representations. They interact via their game-state representations. The result of that interaction is then decoded into story information. To interact with the world, things must by and large be converted into game-state representation before the interactions may occur.
For example: Someone attacks -> the idea of attacking is matched to an abstract representation within the game-state of what it means to attack -> it’s resolved using a rules based interaction -> the rules based action and result are decoded and the story is updated with the new information.
The flow of information with a negotiative mechanic is flipped: There exists a situation which has both a story and a game-state representation. There are objects that also have both story and game-state representations. They interact via their story representations. The result of that interaction is then encoded into game-state information. To interact with the world, things do not need to be converted into game state representations until after interactions occur.
For example: Someone attacks -> there is a discussion over whether or not the attack should work given the story -> the discussion is negotiated and resolved -> the results of the negotiation are encoded into game state.
It’s Broader Than That Though
Negotiative mechanics don’t just have to negotiate over the grounds of a game’s story. In fact, there doesn’t even need to be a story referenced at all. The core of a negotiative mechanic is a structure of referencing something external to the game-state, negotiating over it, and encoding it into the game-state.
Let's say a game says “The person who’s had the worst day today goes first”
Resolving this mechanic would involve players talking about their days, negotiating to decide who has had the worst day, and encode the results of that negotiation into the game.
It still follows the same structure which can be generalized into players using external information to negotiate an outcome and then through some means, bringing parts of that discussion into the game. More specifically: A negotiative mechanic (either implicitly or explicitly) offers a prompt for what should be discussed, gives players a space to bring their own perspectives and external information into the conversation, and gives a framework (however simple or complex) by which the discussion can be encoded into the game-state.
From a design perspective, negotiative mechanics broaden the scope of information used during play of a game without having the cognitive load issues of simulating said information using stricter mechanics. They also absolve a game of the need to fully and prescriptively define things that may be quite nebulous in nature. We can look at the two rough examples here and think about what effects they might actually have on play.
From a play perspective, negoiative mechanics demand more from players than more straightforward solutions, it forces them to engage with each other and often the game in a more abstract way.
Why would you negotiate an attack instead of using a strictly defined simulation? By negotiating an attack instead of using a simulated system:
You allow for tactical play without the burden imposed by need rules and simulation tools for every possible situation. By trusting players to discuss and assess based on the specific situations that arise in the game’s story, you’re giving them space to come up with strategies and approaches that were unaccounted for by the designer of the game instead of being limited to what’s in the rules text.
You encourage active listening and participation in aspects of the game that might have otherwise been considered “just flavor.” If players know they’ll have to discuss and justify an approach, they’re primed to look in the situation to find justifications for their approach. Knowing that the dragon’s scales are tough as steel isn’t just an obstacle to overcome via numbers optimization, it’s an invitation to consider what can be used to break through steel and engage in a more diegetic form of problem solving.
How does discussing who’s had the worst day differ from any other way of determining who goes first?
It sets the tone. By talking about their troubles, it puts players into a rather negative state that can be built upon or altered by future events in the game. If you want to offer players relief after a bad day, maybe it serves a purpose for players to think about their bad day first to more strongly experience said relief.
It serves as an icebreaker. Before even the first turn, players are already prompted to discuss and engage with each other on a personal level that “left of the dealer” wouldn’t. It would hopefully get people to commiserate and build a small sense of camaraderie or understanding.
Free me from my torment, let me think for myself, etc. etc. and uhhh... have a nice day.
