The basic enjoyment of SIS

[Callan S.]

Usually a lot of discussion goes on about what you can do with an RPG, taking the Shared Imaginatiove Space involved for granted to do what your interested in.

But what about the joy of linking your imaginative space with others to make a shared space.

To be more precide, why not just imagine alone? What is the advantage of imagining with others? I had a little trouble coming up with answers, so I'm posting here to find some more.

What I've come up with so far is:
* It's having your imagination, but it animates on its own (by GM or other player interaction)
* It also expands the contents of your imagination beyond its usual focus/beyond what you'd usually imagine. It can even expand beyond expectation (in a positive way).

Problemoes with it:
* It can animate in a way that isn't congruent with your personal imaginative space. It can be so jarring you either have to give up your imagination (because it wont merge) and accept a new imaginative space from someone else, or skism off and not be part of SIS.

I think these points can lead to a ton of stuff by themselves, but is there anything else to add to them? Most likely, I think.

[timfire]

You get instant and ongoing validation of your imagination, maybe.

I have a feeling it goes back the the whole "humans are social beasts" thing.

[Christopher Weeks]

I think we have a situation where imagining things is simply enjoyable.  It's a survival trait, I'd bet.  And as Tim suggested, being social is enjoyable (also a survival issue).  So these SIS events are also fun.  But when it's done right, it's not just a little more fun, it exposes a synergy that really allows things to take off.

If you're making up a story, you're not really ever surprised (which has been argued, of course, but isn't really the point now) because it is all coming from you.  When others are inserting things into the narrative, you have to cope.  It gives you a problem to solve -- how to keep the narrative good while incorporating this new element.  Solving problems is fun, too.  The novelty is fun.

It also sets you up as a novelty provider.  Providing narrative elements that other people must then deal with also feels good.  I think it feels good because you know that you're helping them feel good, but also because it feels powerful.  You're injecting "problems" for them to solve -- things that they must deal with in the same way that you have to.  And you have all that immediate feedback by watching them scurry around because of what you added.

Even the difficulty of having the participants struggle to keep the imagined space a mutually agreeable shared thing is rewarding.  You step outside the SIS, deal with other humans to figure things out, and reenter the SIS for more narration.  That kind of social and organizational exercise is rewarding (except when it's not, of course).

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

This is me, squinting. If I'm not mistaken, Callan, you're describing the essence of Simulationist play, by my definition of the term, anyway.

Just checkin' in - are we on the same page about that?

Best,
Ron

[Doctor Xero]

This is me, squinting. If I'm not mistaken, Callan, you're describing the essence of Simulationist play, by my definition of the term, anyway.

I must disagree a tad with the implication that this thread applies mostly to simulationism, Ron.  I would say that the delight in shared imagining occurs with all three Creative Agendae, regardless of whether we're sharing dreams, themes, or competitive schemes.

To be more precide, why not just imagine alone? What is the advantage of imagining with others?
---snip!--
Problemoes with it:
* It can animate in a way that isn't congruent with your personal imaginative space. It can be so jarring you either have to give up your imagination (because it wont merge) and accept a new imaginative space from someone else, or skism off and not be part of SIS.

Noon, I'm not sure if the love of shared imagining can be completely explained, simply because we are fairly certain that communal storytelling and other performances and group imaginational activities pre-date written history.  But here're a few thoughts more specific to your topic.

(If you want, I will go look up the citations and sources in my notes, but for the nonce I'm just going to throw out a few things.)

*** Humans use talking and storytelling as a means of communal bonding.  A serious but humorous quip in anthropological circles is that human beings use conversation for bonding in the same way that chimps use grooming and eating each other's body vermin for bonding.  (Now you understand why teenagers can spend three hours on their cell phones without using any words beyond "kewl" and "dude" and "omigawd!" <grin>)  Communication experts note that the vast majority of speech is filler and idle chatter : speech has primarily a social not intellectual function.  I've seen the same sort of bonding at roleplaying games of all three CAs, and not only with game-independent talking or with beer-n-pretzel bonding games.  Gamers often use the events of the game for both out-of-character jokes and gossip and for out-of-character serious discussion on topics brought up in game (this occurs for gamist and simulationist play as well as for narrativist play).

*** Walter Benjamin has written about the use of storytelling as a means of keeping the community interconnected and enlivened.  In one of his essays, he writes about the community's need for the traveller and dreamer who become storytellers.  (In Shakespearean times, to gossip was to share stories about far-away friends, not to spread idle rumors, and gossip was a valuable means of long-distance interaction in an age without telephones or e-mail and with poor postal services.)  He also writes about the delight in art having the community-bonding function of shared experiences about which to talk.  Remember, when storytelling bonds a community, it does not only bond them as passive audience -- it bonds them interactively, whether that interaction comes from the inspiration to share stories in return, round robin style, or to discuss thoughts about the story afterwards among themselves, or to actively contribute to the ongoing tale-telling.  A modern version of this would be the RPG.

*** One of the many, many, many functions of art can be self-revelation.  This holds for the arts of storytelling as well.  Narrativists and simulationists alike may use their gaming, whether indirectly through Actor stance or more directly through Author stance, to reveal their own thoughts, their own concerns, their own issues, and their own fascinations and delights.  I have used my game-mastering to help players understand something I know intimately and the reverse.

*** There have only been a few studies of organized fandom, directly or indirectly (as in the study of flow), but these studies demonstrate that organized fandom involves the appropriation of the text (whether Harry Potter or Star Trek or Buffy or Wheel of Time) and then a sort of interactive immersion, turning the shared  text into a shared imaginative space with the use of fanfics, conventions, roleplaying games based off the subject of the fandom, etc.  The interactive fandom actually fulfills healthy communal, personal, and creative exercise for the individual fan.  I think the parallel with RPGs is obvious here.

*** A valuable -- perhaps critically necessary! -- form of communal storytelling has been known by two other names in our modern society : mythology and religion.  'Nuff said? (to quote Stan Lee)

*** Related to the communal functions of storytelling in mythology and religion are the communal functions of participatory ritual in mythology and religion.  If memory serves, the participatory ritual elements of RPGs and their relationships with the shared imaginative space have been addressed already several times on The Forge.

*** Human beings are a performance-based animal.  We use body language as a critical element of interaction, we use dramatic pauses to highlight our thoughts, and according to studies by such scholars/scientists as Goffman and Butler and Lacan, our sense of individual identity and communal identity is formatted in large part by our no-longer-conscious "performance" as a member of our society.  We are members of our communities only to the degrees that we performatively enact being members of our communities.  Furthermore, we are able to mimic the performative enactings of membership in other communities -- when done professionally, we call this theatre and acting, and when done recreationally we call this improvisational theatre and roleplaying gaming. < grin >

*** Johann Huizinga once described human beings as "homo ludens", man or woman the player.  To explicate the relevance of that to both society in general and to roleplaying gaming in particular, I'd like to quote extensively from the passage on Agon in The Encyclopedia of Fantasy editted by John Clute and John Grant

What is clear...is that [Johann Huizinga (1872-1945)] intended the term 'agon' (originally a Greek word denoting a verbal contest between two characters in a play) to describe cultural situations in which contest cannot be distinguished from play -- which he defines as "a voluntary activity or occupation executed within certain fixed limits of time and place, according to rules freely accepted but absolutely binding, having its aim in itself and accompanied by a feeling of tension, joy and the  consciousness that it is 'different' from 'ordinary life'."  An agon is, therefore, a contest conducted in accordance with artistic rules, "freely accepted but absolutely binding."  Any complex society can be described -- with some metaphorical latitude -- as containing imagined or actual arenas where conflicts are ritually decided, and where rites of passage are concluded, according to rules which reconfirm the nature of that society through being obeyed and which convey a kind of joy; thus Huizinga's description of humanity as Homo ludens, man the player.  The beheading match in the anonymous 14th-century Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is a form of agon. . .  Modern high fantasies similarly tend to demonstrate the health of their worlds by depicting agons in working order.

I think the above description of agon and homo ludens fits not only storytelling and societal complexities but also gamist, narrativist, and simulationist roleplaying gaming.

*** How often has the shared imaginative space of "playing pretend" been a force of community and bonding for adolescents?  Watch any playground, even into high school and college!

*** How often has the shared imaginative space been a force of community and bonding for adults?  Watch any Hallowe'en or New Year's Eve costume party!  (Or the dating scene at any age!) (And I won't even go into sexual roleplaying between consenting adults, in which the entire exercise fails utterly if the imaginings are not "real" to both.)

I hope these few thoughts stimulate some insights.  I look forward to reading your own thoughts.

Doctor Xero

[Callan S.]

Ron, before posting I was wondering if I'd just suddenly bumped into what people find to be fun about simulationism (I hadn't really gotten it before).

But as I think Doctor Xero also says, sharing imaginative space as a group is sort of like the pizza base you put your gamist or narra topings on to flavour it (though this analalogy makes it sound like sim is a plain base, which doesn't sound right). Whatever your topping, the base is still there, even if it doesn't influence the flavour at all like the toppings do.

I get the strong feeling that sharing imaginative space has to be enjoyable in itself. You can't just skip to gamist or narra enjoyment...the foundation SIS has to be enjoyable all by itself. If it isn't fun, you begin to detach from the other users because of core disatisfaction...you might be in a group, but may as well be alone (participation wise).

That's why I was focusing this post on what makes it fun. To help think about how to maintain that fun, because perhaps its all too easy to prioritise the gamist or nar design over the essential foundation. I'm guessing its possible to go wrong that way, perhaps there can't be any prob there.


Christopher Weeks: I know the basic enjoyment of it is hard to pin down, but to systematically support it moreso, it needs some more pinning. On surprise, I read you, but I think it folds neatly into the 'your imagination animates on its own' and 'may be beyond expectations' bit.

It also sets you up as a novelty provider. Providing narrative elements that other people must then deal with also feels good. I think it feels good because you know that you're helping them feel good, but also because it feels powerful. You're injecting "problems" for them to solve -- things that they must deal with in the same way that you have to. And you have all that immediate feedback by watching them scurry around because of what you added.

I think this may be a gamist add on (I think of gamism as sparring rather than just people win or loosing), which is cool and comes intuitively, but isn't the core of enjoying SIS just for itself.

Even the difficulty of having the participants struggle to keep the imagined space a mutually agreeable shared thing is rewarding. You step outside the SIS, deal with other humans to figure things out, and reenter the SIS for more narration. That kind of social and organizational exercise is rewarding (except when it's not, of course).

A collaborative creation, much like everyone enjoying having completed/maintaing the construction of some physical object. I can dig that. It shows a certain level of craftsmanship.


Doctor Xero: Hmm interesting, but I'll go through your points.

- I can understand talking as a bonding process...but its not really a reason to do SIS. Why go to that effort when you could just have a converstation instead?
Although I will say that I think men don't get together just to talk, they get together to do something and talk while they do it. Which could explain why its as far as I know, a male dominated hobby...we do this to have a bit of a chat and women don't need it? Just a thought there.

- Sharing cultural material, that sounds about right. Probably been happening since the first cave paintings or before (I kind of fondly think of cave paintings as roleplay...just not so fantasy orientated, for those guys back then).

- Self expression, yeah that seems right too. I'd almost say that why not just write a book and hand it to a friend to read. But SIS is far more subtle and intuitive, in a way.

- Belonging to something (if I read you right), ie you have a share in an SIS and thus your sort of have a place you belong in...the more you game, the more interwoven your place is in that SIS (You couldn't remove it without the rest collapsing structurally). Yeah, sounds good.

- Err, then I get a bit lost or your saying things I think that just reinforce previous statements. But that's me and besides, I've gotten some good material from you here. :)

[Christopher Weeks]

It also sets you up as a novelty provider. Providing narrative elements that other people must then deal with also feels good. I think it feels good because you know that you're helping them feel good, but also because it feels powerful. You're injecting "problems" for them to solve -- things that they must deal with in the same way that you have to. And you have all that immediate feedback by watching them scurry around because of what you added.

I think this may be a gamist add on (I think of gamism as sparring rather than just people win or loosing), which is cool and comes intuitively, but isn't the core of enjoying SIS just for itself.

I don't think it has anything whatever to do with gamism.  I think it's deeper than creative agenda.  Power and Nurturing are powerful drives, not just something that "those folks who do things that way" experience.  When you're playing a clearly Nar game with clearly Nar people, I think both of those drives are firing regularly.  Just like the seeking of novelty.

Chris

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Doc and Callan, that's right - Exploration as a necessary foundation, delight in Exploration per se (as a priority) as Simulationism.

So I guess I'm saying "Yes."

Best,
Ron

[Silmenume]

OK - this is where I throw a wrench into the whole process.

Enjoyment or delight in Exploration as a priority in NOT Simulationism - its Zilchplay.  When Exploration is harnessed/employed towards some metagame goal Exploration is then under the controlling influence of a Creative Agenda.  Conversely when there is no metagame process and/or goal then there is no CA in operation.

It is illogical to say one prioritizes Exploration and calling it a CA in the same way that one prioritizes swinging bats in baseball and calling it a game (In the sense of a 9 inning process etc.).  Its to what end that those tools are employ that demonstrates (analogously) what CA is in operation.  To just enjoy Exploration for its own sake without employing conflict towards a goal is akin to just enjoying shagging flies without trying to score runs.  (I know baseball is gamist per say, but the analogy holds for Nar and Sim as well.)

One can do so, and that enjoyment can be its own reward, but I would call such a prioritization of the employment of elements over process or product Zilchplay, not Sim.  Sim does have a process and goals; Sim is not just being but struggling towards.

Aure Entaluve,

Silmenume

[Alan]

It is illogical to say one prioritizes Exploration and calling it a CA in the same way that one prioritizes swinging bats in baseball  ..

Why is it illogical?  Exploration is a tool of role-playing just as a bat is a tool of baseball.

[Silmenume]

It is illogical to say one prioritizes Exploration and calling it a CA in the same way that one prioritizes swinging bats in baseball  ..

Why is it illogical?  Exploration is a tool of role-playing just as a bat is a tool of baseball.

Exploration isn't just a tool of role-playing, it is the act of roleplaying.

Maybe my analogy fails but first lets get my whole quote working first – "It is illogical to say one prioritizes Exploration and calling it a CA in the same way that one prioritizes swinging bats in baseball and calling it a game (In the sense of a 9 inning process etc.). Its to what end that those tools are employed that demonstrates (analogously) what CA is in operation."

Exploration requires the employment of all five of the elements of Exploration.  Creative Agenda is the expression of how one uses Exploration.  To go to the baseball analogy, its not enough to just swing bats at balls (shag flies) but to do so in a fashion that leads to some sort of goal.  Its not enough to just have 9 people on the field each doing their own thing, some playing catch, some running bases, others swinging bats.  That would be the equivalent of just or prioritizing Exploration.  Everyone is using the pieces (Exploring), but to no specific end (No expression of a CA).  They must all be trying to accomplish something together, when everyone comes together to try and defeat the opposing team or to allow every little leaguer on a team a chance to contact the ball at least once or whatever, that is the rough analogy to Creative Agenda.  At this point swinging the bat (and everything else) has picked up a purpose and a meaning beyond just taking a shaped piece of lumber and whirling it about one's body.

Thus one cannot prioritize Exploration and then turn around and call that a Creative Agenda.  Just plain Exploration with out a CA in operation is just fiddling with the pieces.  One can have a great time doing that, but that is not a Creative Agenda.

I don't know if I have myself any clearer or just dug myself another 6 feet deeper.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Alan]

Hi Sil,

I think you've just stated that exploration is the both the act of roleplaying and at the same time inadequate to be called roleplaying.  Maybe you could clarify?

[Alan]

Hi again,

In the thread  http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10460&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=zilchplay" > How do I define this? Walt Freitag defined zilchplay as

This is technically a type of Simulationism by default, because in the absence of a desire to actively pursue a Gamist or Narrativist agenda the only focus is on exploration. It's also precisely what I've termed zilchplay. I once described a typical zilchplayer's behavior this way: "imagine the elements the GM is describing and trigger my standard character behaviors at the expected times." With a possible quibble on the word "expected," that's exactly the aspect of his play style that you find most striking.

This is prioritizing a kind of consistency of exploration above other concerns.  So as Walt observes, it is by Ron's definition, a form of simulationism. Zilchplay does not break the paradigm.

Simulationism certainly has a goal: to create a consistent series of explorations.  Exploration is bounded and directed by that principle.

Conflict exists in simulationist play, not as a tool to drive exploration, but as part of The Dream itself, required for the consistent imaginary experience because conflict is part of our very expectations of reality.  Without it, The Dream loses verisimilitude.

[JackBauer]

Usually a lot of discussion goes on about what you can do with an RPG, taking the Shared Imaginatiove Space involved for granted to do what your interested in.

But what about the joy of linking your imaginative space with others to make a shared space.

To be more precide, why not just imagine alone? What is the advantage of imagining with others? I had a little trouble coming up with answers, so I'm posting here to find some more.

What I've come up with so far is:
* It's having your imagination, but it animates on its own (by GM or other player interaction)
* It also expands the contents of your imagination beyond its usual focus/beyond what you'd usually imagine. It can even expand beyond expectation (in a positive way).

Problemoes with it:
* It can animate in a way that isn't congruent with your personal imaginative space. It can be so jarring you either have to give up your imagination (because it wont merge) and accept a new imaginative space from someone else, or skism off and not be part of SIS.

I think these points can lead to a ton of stuff by themselves, but is there anything else to add to them? Most likely, I think.

Why does'nt each person create their own Imagined Space Modules (ISMs), which contains Characters, Descriptions, Settings, Genres, and Connections, and then "copy" those Modules to use at a later time if you want the ISMs (Imagined Space Modules) to "revert" back to their original forms after you and the PCs are done "playing" with them. This eliminates the need for hurt feelings (for ruining the authors' individual vision), and allows a Module to be used over and over again, by the same or different groups, and come up with different outcomes for each time you "plug" a Module into the "Shared Imagined Space Socket". This way, you can continue using a specific Module for as long or as much as anyone wants without ruining any individuals' vision. Every group and/or creator of a Module could create their own house rules to use with the Module when they use it. Also, this allows for "Shared Author Vision", meaning, if 2 or more authors have 2 or more different Modules, but have agreed that the Modules are consistent enough with eachother that they can combine them, and have a shared altering negotiation. New connections will be made, things will be tweaked, and they can copy and use this new "Shared Author Vision" any time they want, plus, the original, pre-altering Modules are still the same so that they can play the pre-altered version any time they want. Modules can be as complicated or as simple as the author(s) want it to be. The best part is, is that each Module will be portable, and they have the advantage of being able to take up very little space, especially when compact in it's own file or stored on a computer. Modules could be easily traded, either face-to-face, or, even better, over the Internet. Imagine, if you will, a Website, or a group of websites, which allow Players and Authors to pick up, trade, or Upload their Modules onto a giant database, where anyone can then see them, copy them, use them, or share them with others. It will be a place where all those involved in the Roleplaying community may sit back and read the latest gaming related news right there on the front page of the site. A place where Players can chat and organize meetings or games or simply discuss a Module or Author. A place where Authors can brainstorm and have "Shared Author Visions" together. A place where every Player, Author, or even people newly interested in the subject may congregate and share ideas...It Would be a boon to the Roleplaying
community, like a newly lit lighthouse in the middle of a foggy, turbulent bay, preventing the Roleplaying industry from crashing into the jagged rocks of the niche market and large-looming player boredom.




What does everyone think about that?

[Silmenume]

Hey Alan,

I think you've just stated that exploration is the both the act of roleplaying and at the same time inadequate to be called roleplaying.  Maybe you could clarify?

I'd be glad to!  Now if only I could do so effectively!

In the model Exploration is the "sea upon which all roleplay floats."  Exploration is the process of the employment of the tool/elements of Exploration – Character, Setting, Situation, System and Color.  Exploration is something akin to grammar.  Exploration is the framework and the very tools used to express ideas, but it is not the idea itself.  Creative Agenda says what ideas are important and how we'll investigate them.  You can't investigate those ideas without grammar.

Thus Exploration is the act of roleplay, but that act must be directed.  Thus focusing on the employment of grammar (Exploration) is not the same as the expression of ideas (Roleplay).  What ideas are expressed and how is Creative Agenda.  That is the distinction I make between Exploration and CA.

Zilchplay is the employment of grammar but without the investigation of the idea.  And in the bad analogy that I am using, investigation requires that those ideas be in conflict in some way so that in the process of hashing them out something new is created from the resolution of the conflict of those ideas.  Something like dialectics (in analogy only) – but do not carry this analogy too far.

Regarding Walt's statement he is complaining that Zilchplay gets lumped into Simulationism by default and that he is unhappy about that.  He is not advocating such a thing as useful or desired, but rather pointing out the very problem.

Aure Etuluva,

Silmenume