Started by rgrassi, June 23, 2009, 05:43:34 AM
QuoteThis is an analysis of ANY sort of communication. I can type anything I want, in any language that I want. But if I don't do it in English, according to the Social Contract of the Forge, then Ron will moderate my post, and it won't make it onto the message boards for someone else to comment on, it, and I read the comments.
QuoteAnd I'm willing to state (this may blow a hole in your theory) that I do not "Engage in a RolePlay Scenario" for the purpose of "Stimulating My Own Imagination, for my Entertainment."
QuoteI "Engage in a "RolePlay Scenario" for the purposes of "Stimulating Other People's Imagination, for my Entertainment."
Quote from: rgrassi on June 30, 2009, 04:22:47 PMWhat you really do is stimulate Personal Imagination of the others through a (transient) SIS.Rob
Quote from: Caldis on June 30, 2009, 06:57:45 PMQuote from: rgrassi on June 30, 2009, 04:22:47 PMWhat you really do is stimulate Personal Imagination of the others through a (transient) SIS.RobIsnt that already implied by the term shared, i.e. it comes from one person to others through the act of sharing?
QuoteShared means shared among us via communication, not common to us in terms of known or unknown overlap.
QuoteDo 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?
QuoteBecause, 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".
QuoteSecond: 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteMore 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteWorse: 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.
QuoteAll 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: JMendes on July 02, 2009, 07:45:11 AMHey, 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.
QuoteI'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.
QuoteLook 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)