At the roots of roleplaying
contracycle:
Well, I know a fair bit about change management, and I understand the analogy you are drawing. But I think it undermines your argument. If you assert that the "unvalidated space" is more important than the SIS, then this is tantamount to claiming that the change log is more important than the business. This is clearly untrue. Consider that change management, despite best efforts, is capable of making mistakes. When does that mistake come to light? When the rubber meets the road, when the change is implemented. Change management may be useful, necessary, but it is still secondary to the real deal, which is the actual implementation.
Further, I think you understimate how much 3 may be referenced after the fact. It is much less useful to merely observe that X was swapped for Y than to see that X was was swapped for Y because of this or that reason, or in order to achieve this or that goal. The negotiation itself establishes norms and purposes of the group.
Callan S.:
Well, in terms of change that's an interesting emphasis shift. A buisiness wouldn't exist without someone having thought of it to begin with. Are changes really less important than rubber on road? Or are they the very origin of the buisiness, and thus actually more important?
To add some wild theory, does this, as a cultural trend, happen in roleplay? The imaginative 'mass' (I'll call it that for this post) has it emphasis shifted from being the creation of the most important thing, to being the most important thing and the changes are less important? Merely a change log? What do you think, Rob? Are you arguing against this emphasis change?
Oh, even wilder - in a buisiness I'd contend that people think the buisiness chugs along by itself, regardless - so they shrug, cease thinking about it and do the cycle of tasks they are used to doing. The very tasks that make anything actually happen! It's a self fulfilling prophesy, that the buisness will chug along regardless, so don't think about it. Because if you don't think about it (and just go through tasks by habit), it will indeed do that! So the wild bit is, in common roleplay culture, does the imaginative mass (the SIS) start to be seen as something that chugs along regardless, and thus that prophesy is self fulfilled? And that's what makes this perception that these things we do are merely a 'change log' so to speak and not the most important thing. Ie, the creators of everything and thus, atleast in those terms, more important thing, becomes simply becomes 'change management' so to speak and seen as secondary to the imaginative mass.
Ok, I'll stop! The first paragraphs question would have been enough, probably.
rgrassi:
A lot of stuff to discuss. Just leave me some time in order to reply because I don't want to make things more complex than they are adding layers of words.
More, I think I need a clarification about an assumption I'm making that may be wrong.
When we talk about "SHARED Imagined Space" are we intendingit as "Shared AND agreed", "Shared for agreement" or just "Shared"? Sharing and agreement are not necessarily subsequential nor they're connected in any way. There may be agreement without sharing and sharing without agreement.
Can someone pleasy clarify on this?
I'll wait an answer before going on with my reply.
Thanks in advance,
Rob
Adam Dray:
It's shared and agreed.
M. Burrell:
I must confess I'd lost track of where this thread was for a while.
I also seem to have made a fool of myself and hadn't anticipated my somewhat impetuous comments might fall under the gaze of stern and masterly ludographers. Terrifying.
The point I was trying to make was a broader, somewhat philosophic comment on the necessarily contrived nature of shared imagination - a self evident and, in hindsight, banal observation. My error was attempting to use the Forge's lexicon - terms I have yet to fully appreciate in both scope and meaning. I thank those who have patiently pointed out my flawed assumptions and apologise for any feathers misplaced. It seems this schoolboy must return to his books!
Thanks,
Mike.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page