At the roots of roleplaying
rgrassi:
Hi J...
Quote from: JMendes on July 02, 2009, 03:45:11 AM
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.
In some ways they overlap. I know Victor (and maybe he knows me), because we're both lovers of textual interative fiction and we're aware (and in some case take part to) theory efforts in that field. And I actually see his point of view.
The strange thing is that, as many others, the thread stops "in-between" and there's no pronunciation such as "this is good, this is no-good". There're only proposition of intents and some proposals... There're even direct questions without answers. :)
Analogies are in the "proposed text added", "proposed text rejected", the sequencial logical steps and the 'spaces' to add.
Main difference is that I'm not strictly interested in saying that what is proposed/added is "text", "words", "events" or "whatever". Whatever is proposed is filtered and accepted or rejected.
Interesting stuff that may be derived from my kind of approach are...
A) Are explicit procedures/rules or implicit assumptions existent on the arrows of the model? If not, are they really needed?
For instance... on the arrow on step #1. (The player submits the candidate 'move')
Does some game provide explicit rules about "How things must be said?" or about "What can I say and what I can't say?" That is meant before any validation occurs. (Someone has said that there's a game in which you have to talk in first person, that's an example).If there are no explicit rules, are there any assumptions taken for granted? I mean "How things must be said" must be deduced from the 'social contract'? "What I Can't say" must be deduced by a common understanding of the SIS?
I'll soon provide new images with similar doubts allocated on the arrows, for the moment, and then on the circles.
Rob
Adam Dray:
I'll say it one last time, then I'm bowing out of the thread. IIEE in The Big Model covers all this stuff you're talking about. You've just relabeled it to look at it a different way.
To use your arrow analogy, IIEE is the giant arrow between your PIS and the SIS. IIEE is how stuff gets into the fiction. IIEE is four moments (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect), and presumably System can get involved before or after any one of those, so there are five little arrows there, or more if you're silently skipping through (not over) the middle I, the middle E, or both.
Ron Edwards:
Hey everyone, remember that the overall goal here isn't getting anyone to admit to or agree about anything. It's a matter of trying to reach an understanding of what everyone is saying.
If someone doesn't get there, that's all right. As long as you think you've said your piece so that someone else, a third party reading this now or later, can understand you, then you've done what you can.
Best, Ron
rgrassi:
Quote
I'll say it one last time, then I'm bowing out of the thread. IIEE in The Big Model covers all this stuff you're talking about. You've just relabeled it to look at it a different way.
Adam, a simple relabeling would be already a good result for me (and maybe for someone willing to use this image to better understand the cycle.
But what I'm trying to say is that no matters how you decompose the proposed stuff. Current 4 steps model (IIEE) may be 1 step or 126.
Each step will make a complete cycle. (I proposed, I validated, I personalized from the SIS; I proposed, I validated, I personalized from the SIS; E proposed, E validated, E personalized from the SIS; E proposed, E validated, E personalized from the SIS).
More.
Look at the figure below. No more trouble defining conch shell games.
Conch Shell Games are games in which no "Validation Space" exist for the entire duration of the game. Narration goes straight into the SIS. (I'm not saying that there are no checks for internal logic)
And moving a step ahead.
This is what I have in mind. Look at questions on the arrow. (1. - 2. - 3.)
In my next post I'll try to write all the questions that I've in mind and looking for a precious feedback.
Rob
Adam Dray:
Whoa.... you said something new that dragged me back into the discussion.
Quote
Look at the figure below. No more trouble defining conch shell games.
Conch Shell Games are games in which no "Validation Space" exist for the entire duration of the game. Narration goes straight into the SIS. (I'm not saying that there are no checks for internal logic)
I think I understand what you're getting at, but I think you're totally wrong. Conch Shell games require validation just like all other RPGs. Just because someone has complete narrational authority, they don't get to just subvert the social contract layer. The SIS is always communicated, always shared, always validated, always consented by the entire group. Always.
Even your "no checks for internal logic" says so. Those checks are a small part of the validation in a Conch Shell game.
Here's a fictional example:
Bob and Jo's characters are in a melee fight. Bob wins narration.
Bob: "So Bobdar the Barbarian swings his axe down and CUTS OFF Jongar's nose! She's mutilated forever!"
Jo: "Seriously? That sucks. If you do that, I won't play any more."
Bob: "The rules say I have authority here."
Jo: "Yeah, well that sucks anyway. No way."
Bob: "Uh. Okay. He cuts off one of her fingers then."
Jo: "I can live with that. Bastard."
You CANNOT get rid of the group evaluation (the Validation Space or whatever). It's at the social contract level, too.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page