At the roots of roleplaying
Moreno R.:
Roberto, what is the difference between the Personal Imagined State, and a person's imagination? Why the need for another jargon term?
Where is situated the unvalidated imagined space? How could I, at first sight, recognize an item from the unvalidated imagined space from one in the shared IS?
I don't think there are two "spaces" at all. Something is shared or not, period. The validation process don't "unshare" what was said. It simply mark it (previonally) as "true / not true" (or even "maybe true"). Think about a game about a investigation. "this character is the killer" could go from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" again all the time. It's not a one-way step as you draw here.
Some of these impur don't pass for a validation process at all: for example, when someone win narration rights in a conflict, under certain limits what he will say is validated before being imagined.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Moreno R. on June 29, 2009, 09:54:58 AM
Roberto, what is the difference between the Personal Imagined State, and a person's imagination? Why the need for another jargon term?
I think Rob is trying to distinguish three seperate acts of imagining, rather than letting them all get clumped in together under a 'persons imagination' and that obscuring the details of what process is at work.
Quote
Where is situated the unvalidated imagined space? How could I, at first sight, recognize an item from the unvalidated imagined space from one in the shared IS?
That's a tricky question, Moreno. Have you ever proposed something that could be in the SIS, but your prepared to have it not accepted? Like say your PC swinging across the room on a rope - but your say it with it in mind that somehow it might not fit and might not end up being used? Or do you normally either say something and it goes straight to the SIS or not say anything at all? Ie, once you imagine it, you just say your swinging across the room? I'm thinking the diagram might not make sense because some people might be used to speaking directly into the SIS straight from the personal imagined state, with no validation phase.
Quote
I don't think there are two "spaces" at all. Something is shared or not, period. The validation process don't "unshare" what was said. It simply mark it (previonally) as "true / not true" (or even "maybe true"). Think about a game about a investigation. "this character is the killer" could go from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" again all the time. It's not a one-way step as you draw here.
I think going from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" would be multiple cycles of the diagram. The diagrams just covers one use of the process, they don't represent multiple uses layered on each other. Rob, am I correct on that assumption?
Quote
Some of these impur don't pass for a validation process at all: for example, when someone win narration rights in a conflict, under certain limits what he will say is validated before being imagined.
Well, other people would be checking/validating that your sticking to those limits. It's probably such a smooth validation phase that way that it's almost imperceptable.
rgrassi:
Some reply...
Quote from: Moreno R. on June 29, 2009, 09:54:58 AM
Where is situated the unvalidated imagined space?
In the same dimension of the Shared Space. Unvalidated Imagined Space handles all possible states of SIS that are negotiated because of the event to be validated.
Quote from: Moreno R. on June 29, 2009, 09:54:58 AM
How could I, at first sight, recognize an item from the unvalidated imagined space from one in the shared IS?
Before the System it's in the unvalidated space.
After the System it's in the shared space.
Quote
The validation process don't "unshare" what was said. Quote
???
It's not what I'm saying.
The validation process is used to "share and agree" what has been submitted by the player(s).
Quote
Think about a game about a investigation. "this character is the killer" could go from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" again all the time. It's not a one-way step as you draw here.
Quote
I think going from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" would be multiple cycles of the diagram. The diagrams just covers one use of the process, they don't represent multiple uses layered on each other. Rob, am I correct on that assumption?
You're right. This process may be (in some case is) cycled far all the events that are proposed to be in the SIS.
Quote
Some of these impur don't pass for a validation process at all: for example, when someone win narration rights in a conflict, under certain limits what he will say is validated before being imagined.
That's kinda weird...
Maybe you're saying that in some case the validation process is skipped (and the Unvalidated Imagined Space also). That's true. There are some cases in which what is said goes directly into the SIS.
I'll provide details about this in next posts. Mostly, when the player 'wins' authorship what he says goes directly from the Personal Space to the Shared Space.
A type of games where this occurs are the parlour games (as said before). These are narration games with an high risk of incoherency (not in the sense of the model).
Rob
rgrassi:
If any of you is still interested I'm redrawing the images to make them more clear.
Then I'll talk about each single step in detail.
Rob
contracycle:
Here's my thing. The shared imagined space is a "real" imagined space. It has content, texture, motion. There is a street, here is an character, over there is a prop. There is Stuff in the SIS. I can, and do, imagine the SIS as a real space - in my minds eye, I can look down its length, see people moving within it, look up at the sky or down at the ground. And there is something there, either something mandated by the act of sharing, or a detail I have added or extrapolated myself. I have memories of imagined spaces I have played in, in exactly the same way that I have memories of imagined spaces invoked by a book I have read.
In your "unvalidated" space, there is no stuff. There is merely the proposition of stuff. It does not have content in the same way the SIS does. The unvalidated space contains the maybes, the might-have-beens, the possibly-could-be's. There is nothing really there. I cannot really imagine this unvalidated space - it has no coherency, it is not realised, it is not really an imagined space at all.
As a category, a bucket, a step that describes the procedure by which the SIS is modified? Sure, I can acknowledge your proposition in those terms. But it does not seem to be a real imagined space. I don't understand what is to be gained by attaching this label to what is essentially the process of negotiation.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page