At the roots of roleplaying
Adam Dray:
So, it seems you've contributed some vocabulary for the conceptual spaces in which information lives during play. Besides naming the spaces, are you saying anything other than, "people think stuff, they communicate stuff, and then the group either validates it or not"? Because none of that is novel to this forum. It's all been hashed out in numerous IIEE discussions.
You talked about the Personal and Unvalidated Imagined Spaces being more important than the SIS. Why does this matter?
How can we use this theory to better understand game play and game design?
Callan S.:
Well, there often seem to be accounts of people suddenly going "Oh, of course X would happen!!" in play, where the events of the shared fiction become so convincing for them they bypass a validation stage as "It's obvious X would happen!!". Which doesn't ask if people would imagine it (there's no request for validation), it insists/forces other people to imagine it. It seems the SIS does get idolised fairly often.
Moreno R.:
Hi Roberto!
As Ron before, I am not sure I understand the point of this. Do you want to make a point for ADDING thiese new "spaces" you have labeled to the Big Model, or do you want to create a new, "single-player centric" (and not social) model of roleplaying?
Because, for now, all you have done is labeling. We all know that what we add to the SIS come from SOMEWHERE, but I call that somewhere "the player's imagination", or "the player's mind", not "Personal Imagined Space".
Why not add that new "space" to the Big model? Well, first, because (at least in my opinion) is a useless labeling. Jargon can be useful when you have the need to give a name to something new, but you have simply given another name to imagination. We could go on labeling the player "the active imaginer" and his chair "the support for the active imaginer", but they are still a player and a chair.
Second: that space would "break" the fundamental nature of the big model: it's a model of roleplaying seen as a SOCIAL activity, looking only at what it's shared, communicated, and what can be observed.
Rpg models that take into account imagination are not new. Hell, every single rpg model outside of the Forge (that I know) do it! Almost all of them START by considering the player' imagination as the fundamental "space" where role-playing exist. The result of this are usually gaming "theories" that devalue communications and shared agenda between the players, looking instead at the turtling player who imagine worlds inside his mind as the "perfect player" because he is "imagining he is in the game world", and system as a "necessary evil" instead of a fundamental part of the act of roleplaying.
It's for this basic and fundamental initial errors, that they are all failures. When you consider "the fundamental act of roleplaying" something you do alone, and other can only disturb you when you do it, you have already missed what roleplaying is by a mile.
The objective success of the Big Model (in practical terms: it did product fruitful innovation and new ways of gaming) come from this "break" from the traditional vision of imagination as the fundamental act, a 180 degree turn: in the Big Model, imagination is even OUTSIDE the model. We simply don't care what your imagination is doing. You could have a perfect image of the game world with incredible special effects, or you could think about tomorrow's exam. It doesn't matter, if you still do your part in the game. If you still engage with the other player, contribute to the SIS and the the common agenda, you're playing well. You are doing you part in this SOCIAL activity.
I don't see your model, so, as a fruitful addition to the Big Model. At best is imagination with a new name. At worst, it's return to older, useless visions of role-playing that never amounted to anything.
More than that, if we add your SECOND new "space", separating what it's accepted from what still isn't, we have an artificial, not observable division. The process used by the system (in the lumpley principle sense) to filter what can be added from what isn't isn't so simple and clear-cut as you draw it. For example, if a player says "I use my red coat to cover the hole in the dress", the GM can in many games refuse to allow this "No, you can't make it in time, they have seen the hole". But now every other player "know" that the coat is red. They know that that character wanted to do that action.
If you consider EVERY addition to the SIS as part of the SIS, and the SIS as a running process, not as a static space, not only all make sense, but you can film a movie of the gaming session and see the SIS in action, every single little bit of it.
If you label a part of the SIS as "unvalidated" and another as "shared", you break the model's objectivity. Because you can't observe one or the other of these "spaces" separately. Worse: you have took "system" away from both of these spaces (using it as the barrier betwwen them) turning both in static places, made up only of character, setting, situation and color, without movement and without possible changes, and the only way to have changes is to change space again, returning back to the unvalidated space, and be re-validated again. All you get is a terrible complication of the model, and the result is to turn a observable element of the model in two imaginated "spaces" that I don't really believe exist as separate spaces anyway.
So, it's not that your model is "wrong". You can label anything you want anyway you want, until you make predictions it can't be "wrong". Is that you lose the things that make the Big Model useful. and don't show any new useful part to make up for it.
I have other issues with it, too. For example the way it seems to consider imagination transitive (If I imagine a red coat, how can I be sure that the coat you imagine is the same coat I am imagining?), bit it's a common problem of any model that consider the SIS as a physical "space" instead of a workspace.
rgrassi:
Hi Moreno! :)
Gosh... It takes really a long time to read and reply.
Quote
Do you want to make a point for ADDING thiese new "spaces" you have labeled to the Big Model, or do you want to create a new, "single-player centric" (and not social) model of roleplaying?
Single-player centric model of roleplaying is beyond my scope (even if it would be really interesting and both the single-player centric and social-based model are part of the whole representation of it, so it should'nt be underestimated, but it's maybe out-of-scope for this forum).
So, I imagine the right answer is "to add new labels to the model".
Quote
Because, for now, all you have done is labeling. We all know that what we add to the SIS come from SOMEWHERE, but I call that somewhere "the player's imagination", or "the player's mind", not "Personal Imagined Space".
As said before, I've nothing against changing labels. "Player's Imagination" is good for me.
At the same way "Validation Space" may be a good name instead of "Unvalidated Imagined Space".
Quote
Second: that space would "break" the fundamental nature of the big model: it's a model of roleplaying seen as a SOCIAL activity, looking only at what it's shared, communicated, and what can be observed.
And I absolutely agree.
For that reason, I think it's important to exactly identify what is NOT explicitly shared, NOT explicitly agreed, NOT explicitly communicated and NOT clearly observable in order to respect the nature of the model and delimit its scope.
Quote
The objective success of the Big Model (in practical terms: it did product fruitful innovation and new ways of gaming) come from this "break" from the traditional vision of imagination as the fundamental act, a 180 degree turn: in the Big Model, imagination is even OUTSIDE the model. We simply don't care what your imagination is doing. You could have a perfect image of the game world with incredible special effects, or you could think about tomorrow's exam. It doesn't matter, if you still do your part in the game. If you still engage with the other player, contribute to the SIS and the the common agenda, you're playing well. You are doing you part in this SOCIAL activity.
I clearly see your point. And i go further.
What I claim is that only what is "explicitly shared" and "explicitly agreed" (by players or by the characters in the fiction) is part of the SIS.
I'm not talking about imagination.
I'm talking about something observable.
What "is not said" or is "taken for granted but not explicitly said" is NOT in the SIS.
Quote
I don't see your model, so, as a fruitful addition to the Big Model. At best is imagination with a new name. At worst, it's return to older, useless visions of role-playing that never amounted to anything.
I don't want to get back to 'imagination based' models.
And i think that this representation may be useful to solve some issues.
I'll be back with that, but it takes a lot.
Moreover, how can I with a single post and some figure convince at-once so many people? The only thing I can do is to propose my thoughts (share), discuss, and try to convince that they may be useful (agree).
The syndrome of "show in one post your thoughts and convince us that you've significant addition/modification to the model" doesn't seem to much constructive to me.
Anyway, I will respect people's will and Ron's one, of course.
He can stop this thread in any moment, particularly if he thinks, ad moderator, that it leads nowhere.
Quote
More than that, if we add your SECOND new "space", separating what it's accepted from what still isn't, we have an artificial, not observable division.
Most of the model is made by artificial divisions. I don't see the problem with that.
Quote
The process used by the system (in the lumpley principle sense) to filter what can be added from what isn't isn't so simple and clear-cut as you draw it. For example, if a player says "I use my red coat to cover the hole in the dress", the GM can in many games refuse to allow this "No, you can't make it in time, they have seen the hole". But now every other player "know" that the coat is red. They know that that character wanted to do that action.
Yes, but they know only because the player has EXPLICITLY said that and the GM hasn't EXPLICITLY said the contrary.
And validation has absolutely worked fine, since three explicitly said [red coat, covering action, hole in the dress] out of three [red coat, covering action, hole in the dress,] proposed have passed the validation step and are now in the SIS.
What's not in the SIS? For example, the reason why you did it, because it's not been explicitly said.
Quote
If you consider EVERY addition to the SIS as part of the SIS, and the SIS as a running process, not as a static space, not only all make sense, but you can film a movie of the gaming session and see the SIS in action, every single little bit of it.
This makes sense. SIS should be an observable thing and it is made by "all that's being said". (but does not include, I imagine, what is taken for granted, or not explicitly said and does not include even how I'm imagining the fictional world.)
But is this the REAL sense of SIS in the model?
Quote
If you label a part of the SIS as "unvalidated" and another as "shared", you break the model's objectivity. Because you can't observe one or the other of these "spaces" separately.
From a pure 'observation' (like the camera film) it's a separation in 'time'.
Some behaviours between players occur before others.
Quote
Worse: you have took "system" away from both of these spaces (using it as the barrier betwwen them) turning both in static places, made up only of character, setting, situation and color, without movement and without possible changes, and the only way to have changes is to change space again, returning back to the unvalidated space, and be re-validated again.
Absolutely right... Why is worse?
Quote
All you get is a terrible complication of the model, and the result is to turn a observable element of the model in two imaginated "spaces" that I don't really believe exist as separate spaces anyway.
I don't think they're not observable.
They're observable in terms of "what players do and what the players say".
Quote
I have other issues with it, too. For example the way it seems to consider imagination transitive (If I imagine a red coat, how can I be sure that the coat you imagine is the same coat I am imagining?), bit it's a common problem of any model that consider the SIS as a physical "space" instead of a workspace.
In the representation that's not an issue.
Rather, discrepancy between what we're imagining it's the 'salt' of the roleplaying fascination.
Rob
JMendes:
Hey, Rob, :)
I'd like to ask that you take a glance at this older thread and tell me if there's anything in common between what Victor was talking about and what you're saying here.
Cheers,
J.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page