At the roots of roleplaying
Ron Edwards:
Hi Rob,
Please do continue with your thoughts, and I'm interested to know what you mean by importance.
We agree about the harmonic issue after all. A kind of 1-2-1-2-1-2-3 is what I had mind, especially if the alternating 1's and 2's become something of a blur with an identity of its own. Specifying that it must start with 1 is an interesting claim ... could not a person be primarily inspired by what someone else says?
Best, Ron
rgrassi:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on June 25, 2009, 08:10:40 AM
Hi Rob, Please do continue with your thoughts, and I'm interested to know what you mean by importance.
Ok, thanks. In order to consolidate my arguments I'll start right from your comment below.
Quote
We agree about the harmonic issue after all. A kind of 1-2-1-2-1-2-3 is what I had mind, especially if the alternating 1's and 2's become something of a blur with an identity of its own. Specifying that it must start with 1 is an interesting claim ... could not a person be primarily inspired by what someone else says?
This comment needs two clarifications, IMO. The first one is about the 'harmonicity'. The second one I'll assume as the entry point to the argumentation about the importance of other spaces.
1) [About the harmonicity] Of course it all depends on how we want to 'modelize' (i.e. represent) the flux. We may see it as a 'cascade' model, and in this case (1) is the starting point or a 'circular' model. Specifically, yours "a person be primarily inspired by what someone else says" may come from (4) [what's already been explicitly said and agreed to be in the SIS and is incorporated into the Personal Space] or from [2] [what must be validated]. In other words, (1) may have connection with 2 and 4 but not with 3.
2) [About the importance of the other spaces] Let's start with my first argument. If you agree with me about the existence of the spaces and have a look at the 'chain' of steps, we see that in a normal rpg session, the main steps invoked are most probably 1 and 2. (i.e. generation of the desired event in one player's brain and submission for group acceptance and validation). SIS is only used in step 3, which is invoked very few times and is only "passively updated" after the validation space has been taken into account. So, my first argument is about the 'number of times' the personal and validation spaces are invoked, which is by far more high than the SIS.
Callan S.:
Hello Rob,
When reading a book, one might try and not just read the words but try and figure out what the authors trying to get at. Are you talking about something like not just reading the SIS, but also trying to figure out what any individual contributing author was trying to get at with his contribution? Ie what he's trying to get at is, to some degree, in his head, not the SIS? I may be way off, so just a quick short post asking, in case it helps at all?
Ron Edwards:
I see where the problem is, Rob.
My formulation of the SIS includes both #2 and #3. The very interjection of voice and body-language into the social space, as long as it involves the imagined material, is the medium.
I think you might be conceiving of the SIS as fully-established product. Whereas I conceive of it as the production. I'm not looking at only the picture, I'm looking at the paint being painted, making the picture.
I look forward to your response to Callan as well.
Best, Ron
rgrassi:
@Callan
Quote
Are you talking about something like not just reading the SIS, but also trying to figure out what any individual contributing author was trying to get at with his contribution?
Exactly. Each contribution is a "proposed change" for the SIS. In order to be a SHARED space you need a 'sharing' phase. "Sharing phase" involves a "Personal Space" (in which just one of the many possible imagined moves is selected) and a "Validation Space". "Validation Space" is like a chalkboard take takes into account the "possible states of the SIS". After the validation only a precise event is 'shared' and incorporated into the SIS. The chalkboard is 'clean' and is ready to receive a new imaginary event to be validated between players.
In most cases narration games (I'm think about parlour games) don't have a validation space and the narrated fiction flows directly from the personal space to the SIS. Validation space is fundamental for rpg (far more than the SIS) and is the real difference between rpg and parlour games, IMHO.
@Ron
I see that your formulation of SIS involves #2 and #3, but, given that IMO the real social interaction occurs mostly in #2 (and not in #3) the formulation of a Validation Space takes rid of many 'false' problems, such as, for instance:
- Retroactive Continuity. Nothing is really happened in the SIS, because it's the validation space that is taking care about the possible resulting SIS.
As long as the proposed events are not fully validated and incorporated into the SIS we're still talking on the chalkboard about a 'draft' of the new SIS to be released. If you (or some of you) is aware about the Change Management Process should clearly have in mind what I'm talking about.
Using your metaphor of the paints, I'm talking about:
1 paint in the mind of the author (Personal Space)
1 'draft' paint to make tests (Validation Space)
1 final paint (Shared Space)
Rob
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page