At the roots of roleplaying
rgrassi:
Hi all... I'd need to have feedback about this.
My opinion is that, at the roots of roleplaying are the following statements:
1) The players desire that something happens (as imagined by them) into the (shared) imagined space.
2) The players "enunciate" something to obtain (1).
3) There's a mechanism to decide upon (2)
The 2) refers to what the players explicitly says.
Am I on the wrong path?
Rob
Adam Dray:
I think you're on the right path, though I can pick nits.
You might do some reading about the Lumpley Principle ("the system is how stuff gets into the fiction") and also check out Vincent Baker's (aka Lumpley) blog posts about how stuff gets into the fiction / SIS.
Here's how I'd put it:
1) Each player is imagining what's going on in her own head and making plans.
2) The players communicate about what they want to happen in the fiction (SIS).
3) There's some kind of negotiation, often subtle, sometimes using game mechanics or dice about what actually happens in the fiction.
4) The players update their own imaginations with what they think was agreed.
5) Repeat until tired.
rgrassi:
Going to have a look at Vincent's blog.
Anyway, I'll foolw this path with you, with some claim.
Agree with your 5 step process (maybe too much words in there but it's acceptable, for the moment) :D.
Quote
1) Each player is imagining what's going on in her own head and making plans.Quote
At this time the only thing we have is a "Personal Imagined Space". There's no sharing. It's like a chalk board. I think this element should be included somewhere in the model.
Quote
2) The players communicate about what they want to happen in the fiction (SIS).
This step must be split in two according to what the players actually says.
2a) This may be the time for social negotiation and veto powers for things that "cannot happen" or players don't like to heard. This sub phase acts as a shield to preserve the SIS.
2b) For things that may happen and/or are estetically accepted by the group conflicts (in the sense of opposing interests between players and/or characters and/or other fiction elements, note conflict definition here is more in the narrative meaning of conflict) may arise. When this happens, the proposed 'move' lays in an "Unvalidated Imaginary Space".
Quote
3) There's some kind of negotiation, often subtle, sometimes using game mechanics or dice about what actually happens in the fiction.
This phase validates the 2b and converts the 'move' into a fictional element in the SIS.
Quote
4) The players update their own imaginations with what they think was agreed.
Correct. Unvalidated Imaginary Space is empty. Personal Imaginary Space starts to work again.
Quote
5) Repeat until tired.
Or until the game has an end status... :)
Rob
Adam Dray:
Take a look at an old blog post of mine about a way of looking at this stuff. I haven't reviewed it lately to see if I still believe all that 100%, though, so some disclaimers apply.
For your 2a), realize that the player doesn't have to say anything out loud. A player could raise an eyebrow, shake his head, point to a miniature, point to a stat on the character sheet, or just not say anything at all (silence is complicity).
I don't think the SIS really needs protecting, either, but I'm curious if you have an actual play example that illustrates what you mean. I find that the SIS is pretty damned resilient in actual play. Players work around problems with cooperation and renegotiation with little trouble.
For your 2b), I don't think you need any kind of special category for them. This is just stuff that never made it from a player's head into the socially accepted fiction.
GM: The mailman flashes his baby-blue eyes at you.
Player: No he doesn't. You said he has brown eyes last game.
GM: Right, brown. Sorry.
"Baby-blue eyes" doesn't go into a special "unvalidated imaginary space." It just isn't true. It isn't accepted into the SIS.
2b) would have to come after 3), anyway, since until 3) happens, there's no discussion or group assent or dissent. I imagine 2) as the arrow coming out of player's heads into the social space and 3) as the arrow going from the social space into the SIS.
[player's heads] ------communication------> [social space] ------negotiation------> [SIS]
Note that [social space] isn't anything real. It's a placeholder for a condition/event when the stuff in player's heads is being shared with other people.
Re: 4), I wouldn't make the steps so sequential. This stuff is changing constantly in the player's heads, in the social space, and (at discrete moments) in the SIS. Sure, it helps to simplify things in examples to one step happening after another, but the reality is more complex than that.
Where are you going with this? I think it would benefit from some actual play examples. Maybe post some actual play in the appropriate forum and break down some illustrative moments using your system and make sure you understand how the play really works?
M. Burrell:
Now, I'm a little new at RPG theory, so you'll forgive me if I make unassuming assumptions and the like.
It strikes me that the Shared Imagined Space (SIS) is taken as an unchallenged given in many of your assertions; that a shared imagined space exists at all is beyond question. Now, I know this isn't the case for all and you really must take the following as unschooled opinion:
I have to propositions to probe the roots of roleplaying:
1. Shared Imaginative Spaces do not exist.
2. Imagination is not the central aspect of Roleplaying Games.
The first point is, initially, fairly simple. There is no way to collectively experience the same imaginative vision (or any internal mental process), thus any notion of a shared space is actually delusion; each contributing member of a role-playing group updates his strictly personal imaginative vision of the discussed goings on and then makes futher contribution from this updated vision, imbuing a sense of progressing shared experience and narrative.
The quality of role-play and the clarity of imaginative vision, I hold, are judged by two factors: Emphasis and Empathy. A player or author must emphasise certain crucial aspects of his imaginative vision when expressing it to other persons (it would be impossible to describe in language every nuance of the internally perceived), often using archetypal descriptors to attempt to engage the other's imaginative vision. Mentioning a 'brick wall' essentially means that the other must construct this wall in his vision out of what he considers the archetype of a brick wall. Adding further descriptors means that the wall becomes more vivid and, perhaps, closer to how you perceive it - but they can never be perfectly shared. As describer you must try draw on the other's imaginative Empathy: his willingness to be imaginatively suggestible and his assumptions to how, in this example, a 'wall' might be perceived.
A extreme example might be playing a game with a man from China. You announce that a dragon has appeared and, without any other descriptors, the other draws on his culturally-inspired archetype of the Chinese-style dragon whereas you perceived something more European. Emphasis (in this case, further descriptors) is needed to draw that vision closer to the oneness SIS suggests. SIS is the perfect form of shared imaginative experience, but, being perfect, it cannot exist.
I find that a shared imaginative experience is not the motivational factor, nor the crux of Role-playing Games. It’s important, I’ll grant you, but a desire for SIS is not why we play! Entertainment is the central percept with Creativity and Social-Interaction being the supporting pillars. These tenements are, for me, the true roots of role-playing and imagination is but the tool to assist the gamer. My conviction: a largely enjoyable and workable experience can be shared by all participants without strictly coherent imaginative imagery.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page