At the roots of roleplaying
Adam Dray:
There are respected people in the game designer community who indeed believe that the SIS isn't as important as what goes on in people's individual imaginations. I don't know of anyone else who believes there's no such thing as the SIS, though.
When I talk about the SIS (and when others do, I presume), we don't mean a perfect shared understanding of each other's imaginations. We mean that we have enough of a common understanding to play a game. Hence, the existence of the SIS is not a controversial thing. When a disagreement about the SIS arises, the players must resolve that disagreement to continue play. Players will always have different understandings, but those disagreements will not always arise in play.
Take your dragon example. Somehow, despite everyone having different ideas about what the dragon looks like, people can continue playing. It's not until the man from China makes a big deal about grabbing onto the dragon's very long tail that some other player might go, "Wait, what?" If that detail causes a disagreement about the SIS, they have to resolve it right there and then.
Your thesis about the SIS not being the crux of play or why we play... where did that come from? I don't think either Rich or I put that on the table. I will, however, point out that it's dangerous to talk about why people play since people play for all sorts of reasons. I suspect you'll find people who will argue that they do indeed play mostly for the shared fiction. I suspect you'll find a couple people who will argue that entertainment is not the main reason they play. For now, stick to what motivates you and talk about that.
Ron Edwards:
Hi,
Let's get at least one reference to an actual play-experience into this discussion. I am not saying it is to be used as evidence or indeed in any way at all except in terms of clarity regarding how it went. Rob, can you help us with that?
Best, Ron
Moreno R.:
This thread is characterized, until now, by a distinct lack of actual play examples. I can only lead to confusion and going around and around...
I know Roberto and we discussed about these things a lot in Italian forums, so I did not repeat these discussions here, but I would like to address some things in the replies he received.
@M Burrell:
It's important to understand if you are talking about the Shared ImaginED Space of Forge Theory (that is a rather distinct and unique concept in roleplaying theory, one of the things that differentiate the Big Model from almost every other theory about rpgs before and after), and what many other theories (and people who misunderstand Forge Theory) call "Shared ImaginaRY Space" (this confusion is even compounded by the recent common habit of using Shared ImaginED space for everything, without acknowledging the difference)
The important part in the SIS of Forge Theory is that it's SHARED, not that it's imagined.
The sequence is: someone, at the table, imagine something. Think about something. Plan something. Come up with something. And then SHARE this imagined thing with the group, using some form of language (talking and gestures at the table, posting in play-by-forums, etc.). After that thing is shared _and accepted_ (it depends on the game system how that happen in a specific game), it become a concrete, observable element of play, that has nothing "imaginary" about it anymore.
This is very, very different from the nebulous "intersection of the imaginations of the players" that other theories (and common rpg forums discussions) presents. I agree with you that this second thing doesn't really exist. But it has nothing to do with the SIS of Forge Theory. When someone in Dogs in the Vineyard imagine that his character, as fallout for a gun wound, take a deep hatred for another character, he does "add this to the SIS" by writing the new relationship on the character sheet. Even if the emotion he imagine is different from the emotion than the one other people at the table imagine, it's added to the SIS anyway. It was imagined ("hey, what If my character begin to hate that one?") and then shared ("hey, people, I think I will choose a new relationship as fallout") and accepted (nobody veto it) and it become a concrete, observable element of the game.
From the Provisional Summary:
Shared Imagined Space (SIS, Shared Imagination)
The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).
Compare with the definition of Shared Imaginary Space of the Process Model:
"The facts, expectations and hopes about the imagined reality being explored, as experienced by an individual, define a conceptual space referred to as the Imagined Space. When role-playing in a group, the Imagined Spaces of the individual participants overlap to create a Shared Imagined Space (SIS) with regards to which the majority of interaction pertaining to the game is enacted. "
As you see, this newer model use "Shared ImaginED Space" (compounding the confusion: at least previous theories usually used "Shared ImaginaRY Space...): not only that, but in the process Model literature, the authors said that "The term Shared Imagined Space originates from discussions at the Forge" without acknowledging the substantial difference between the two concept (something that make my suspect that they really misunderstood Forge Theory and did not see the difference)
It would really, really better if people stopped using the exact same terms for very different things and concepts, but seeing that I don't see any way to force them to do so, in these discussion it' better to precise the gaming theory one is using, and use a lot of actual play examples to avoid these misunderstandings.
[edit: while I was writing this post, Adam and Ron added to the discussion, making the part in this post about actual play examples a repetition of what they already said. But it's so important that I did choose to not change my post: some advice is worth repeating]
Ron Edwards:
Moreno, your post is excellent and I'm happy to have it work with mine in a team effort.
Here are a few points of clarification.
The term "shared imaginary space" is not under discussion. This is not part of the discourse. Its use by anyone you encounter out there in internet-land, if they are referencing the Forge, is an instant giveaway of poor understanding, solid understanding but carelessness, or obfuscation.
The term is "shared imagined space," with imagined being a participle, not an adjective. In other words, the imagining is an act, a verb, and we're doing it together (shared). Since none of us are telepaths, the only part being discussed is the part which is literally shared, i.e., spoken or otherwise communicated (as Adam rightly says, including body language).
Rob, I'm thinking it's important to acknowledge that your #1 and #2 are often not sequential, but harmonic. I'm liking that idea a lot the more I think about it. Does that make sense to you?
M., there is no merit, point, or insight gained from talking about the individuality of the imaginative experience - if what we are talking about is an SIS. I'm not saying that individual experience doesn't exist, or isn't important, or isn't even a priority (Ralph Mazza says it is the priority for him; I think Mike Holmes has said so as well in the past). All of that happens and is fine. But it isn't a problem or a challenge to discussing the SIS.
Because as long as I say "I keep running and hurdle the barrier!" and in this particular game, we know that means a die roll, and we conduct the die roll, I fail the Jumping skill, and you as GM say I can't get over the barrier and fall back, and I say, "I turn to face the orcs, drawing my sword ..."
... then that's the shared imagined space right there. It is composed of the talking that we did. We were talking about imagined stuff happening. It happened and continued to happen without degenerating into missed communication and conflicting imagery. Adam's right that this isn't controversial; it's observably and necessarily the core medium for role-playing.
Best, Ron
rgrassi:
There's a lot of stuff here that has been added to the original post, it's difficult to reply. Anyway I'll try to get back to the original 'spirit of the post'.
@M.Burrell
Let's take for a while the SIS existence out of this thread.
@Adam
I really liked your "social model" of RPG. It's near to my way of description and modelization of role playing.
@Back on topic.
With some example.
1) Each player is imagining what's going on in her own head and making plans.
"Maybe there's a secret door under the carpet. When my turn will come I'll check under the carpet."
"When my turn will come I'll stab a knife in the back of the character in front of me".
All of this takes place in a "Personal Imagined Space" which is private, in which many possible events and outcomes are evaluated by the single player.
2) The players communicate about what they want to happen in the fiction (SIS).
"I check under the carpet." or
"I check under the carpet to find a secret door." or
"I search for a secret door."
This is the moment in which the player proposes events that may enter in the SIS.
I identified a (2a) as the first check of coherence/aestetic which stands for...
"I check under the carpet."
"Which carpet? The room is bare."
and a (2b) as the second check to accept the proposed event into a "Unvalidated Imagined Space" (which is, the Space in which the moves under evaluation are allocated).
"I check under the carpet to find a secret door."
"Mmm... It could be. Let's have a check."
I'm not interested at the moment to have a list of ways how 2a and 2b are solved by different games.
3) There's some kind of negotiation, often subtle, sometimes using game mechanics or dice about what actually happens in the fiction.
This is pretty clear.
"I check under the carpet to find a secret door."
"Mmm... It could be. Let's have a check."
Check done.
"Ok, you look under the carpet and find a secret door."
The move under judgement is validated and the event moves from "Unvalidated Imagined Space" to "Shared Imagined Space".
4) The players update their own imaginations with what they think was agreed.
This means that a new "Personal Imagined Space" is derived from what we've agreed in the "Shared Imagined Space".
"Tom's character has found a secret door under the carpet.
One player imagines it has a mahogany door. Another one thinks of it has gold door. These things are not "shared". Only what is explicitly said is shared. What is not explicitly said is deduced or inferred.
5) Repeat until tired.
Yaaawn... :)
@Ron
I think that 1) and 2) are always sequential.
Rob
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page