Imagined Space Modules

[JackBauer]

Noon wrote:
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?

[Jack Spencer Jr]

What does everyone think about that?

Whoa, in this and your previous reply lost me fast with what looks like techincal jargon like "Shared Imagined Space Socket" or plug and copy like it's an IRC client or wiki.

Sorry, but you asked and I think it's getting overcomplicated already.

[JackBauer]

What does everyone think about that?

Whoa, in this and your previous reply lost me fast with what looks like techincal jargon like "Shared Imagined Space Socket" or plug and copy like it's an IRC client or wiki.

Sorry, but you asked and I think it's getting overcomplicated already.

Actually, I did'nt mean it that way, I just meant that you basically create a setting/story that you can copy and use whenever. Sorry, it just made more sense to me the way I put it.

[JackBauer]

Well? Why is'nt anyone commenting?

[Callan S.]

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".

I think most people tend to run games with on going history, so something employed in play doesn't reset...it remains in the state you left it after playing.

Indeed, I think its fairly common for people to not want to repeat material between games. Things like players who keep remaking the same character over and over tend to be looked on in a bad light. So using the same material even in a new campaign isn't traditionally done.

Also I think what happens to your imagined objects does matter. For example, if my character gets killed, really I shouldn't have any problem thinking of him as alive and ready to be used somewhere else. But I do have a problem with it. Likewise a GM who has his vision for a great game broken, probably has that idea 'killed' in a similar way.

[JackBauer]

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".

I think most people tend to run games with on going history, so something employed in play doesn't reset...it remains in the state you left it after playing.

Indeed, I think its fairly common for people to not want to repeat material between games. Things like players who keep remaking the same character over and over tend to be looked on in a bad light. So using the same material even in a new campaign isn't traditionally done.

Also I think what happens to your imagined objects does matter. For example, if my character gets killed, really I shouldn't have any problem thinking of him as alive and ready to be used somewhere else. But I do have a problem with it. Likewise a GM who has his vision for a great game broken, probably has that idea 'killed' in a similar way.

Well, I agree with what you said, basically, but what about the potential for one Authors' "Module" to be used by all sorts of different groups after being traded to others? Is'nt exploring and preserving others' ideas important to roleplaying world? And what I meant by "revert" is that, basically, when you first create a "Module" , THAT has a beginning status, and stays the same UNTIL YOU START PLAYING IT. After that, if you don't have the beginning status/concept copied, you really can't "Rewind" it, can you? Well, I think the whole concept is that you can, if you package it properly, which is what i'm aiming for with this "Module" idea.

[M. J. Young]

Well? Why is'nt anyone commenting?

One reason I haven't commented is that I don't work on Saturday (long story), so you have to wait until Sunday night for me to read Saturday posts. I know that there are people who live here, but I only visit.

The other reason I haven't commented is that I'm not really sure I'm understanding how what you're suggesting is different from the traditional module, except that you expect game referees to write them up in an Internet-accessible format. If that's all you mean, I believe Gaming Outpost attempted to facilitate exactly that with a Games Library in which members could contribute game materials for a variety of games (those who gave permission for such player-generated materials to be published, which is an issue when dealing with game modules that contain mechanics-related information for specific games). Personally I have more ideas than I can use, generally, so I didn't spend much time looking at what was there (it's still there, but I haven't really looked at it); but I don't think it was ever very popular, and I believe their planning to phase it out with the new rebuild.

To one degree, there's a certain hubris in deciding that something you wrote up for your own gaming group would be useful to others. Obviously I have that hubris in relation to Multiverser game worlds; on the other hand, I've been pressured by a number of people to take my D&D materials and convert them to D20 for publication, and I've resisted. As fascinating as some of them were to play, I don't see there being a tremendous market for my world or my dungeons.

On another level, it's a lot of work setting up an adventure of that sort; it's a lot more work setting it up in a format that is useful to other people. When I'm making notes for myself, I've got my own protocols, abbreviations, and shortcuts that I use because when I'm running the game I'll know exactly what they mean. When I write something up for someone else, I have to explain what all these mean and how to use them. Some games have a lot of these standardized; but even in those games, there are often new ones that show up--and they might be for things for which you've already got your own approach. (I remember wondering what the heck THAC0 was the first time I saw it; most people would be completely lost if they saw my http://www.mjyoung.net/dungeon/adr.html">ADR and Surv scores listed for a creature.)

As mentioned already, there are also copyright issues to consider. Technically, if I write up a monster for use with Dungeons & Dragons Third Edition, I have to include the license with the description, and specify what parts are used under license and what parts are open content. On the other hand, if I want to write up a monster for OAD&D, I have to get permission from Wizards of the Coast, and they probably aren't going to give it to me. The answer is to create something completely generic, with no game-specific content at all. However, such a "module" is only useful to someone able and willing to construct the game-specific materials based on the text, and that's not a really interesting part of the overall task. There are people who buy modules for one game and convert them to another, but in general I don't know how useful it is to get adventures that have no game based statistics.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm throwing cold water on your idea; I think maybe I'm not really understanding what you're suggesting.

--M. J. Young

[JackBauer]

No, I don't expect them to write it up in an internet-friendly format, but that's what they could do if they wanted (and it would be preferable). I had no specific gaming system in mind, in fact, I expect a group to be able to pick up almost any "module", and, within reason, use it with any system, even, or especially even, with house rules made by the group (I prefer more freeform-ish rules myself). Basically, the "module" could contain the meat of the game (settings, color, characters, situation) and then the rest would be up to the gaming group who runs it. This way, we don't have to get licensing involved.

[Andrew Norris]

The closest I think people typically come to this way of thinking is pretty simple -- the "Cool Idea" phenomenon.

You know, when someone posts a brief excerpt from their game, or something they have planned in the future, and the next response is something like "Yoink! Consider that stolen for my game." I suppose you could formalize that technique. (In a way, it's sort of how a lot of gaming supplements are actually used, rather than how they're built to be used -- when I read a large metaplot-heavy game supplement, I cherrypick bits and pieces from it, as I imagine a lot of people do.)

If you want to get away from system issues and break it down to the basic issue, just about anything can be an "idea module". Books, movies, comics, take your pick. I've probably gone far afield from what your intended idea was, but that's how I view the issue.

[simon_hibbs]

No, I don't expect them to write it up in an internet-friendly format, but that's what they could do if they wanted (and it would be preferable).

But they would need to write it up in some kind of standardised format, otherwise what's the difference between this and any current RPG scenario or game writeup?

Basically, the "module" could contain the meat of the game (settings, color, characters, situation) and then the rest would be up to the gaming group who runs it. This way, we don't have to get licensing involved.

The language you're using (module, plug, socket, interface) imples a very heavily standardised format for the material. How do you imagine shaping that format? What kind of content do you think would need to be mandatory and what optional? What characetristics of the format , or content guidelines would promote imteroperability between gaming groups, game systems, genres, etc?

I think you weren't getting many posts becuase it all seems very nebulous at the moment. I don't see what you're proposing would achieve it's goals, or realy what those goals are in practical terms.


Simon Hibbs

[JackBauer]

Hmm...You're probably right, I did jump the gun a little with the idea. I need some time to think. It would be great if anyone would like to discuss the topic of standardization within the modules on this thread, maybe it would give me some good ideas. If not, that's okay.

[contracycle]

Well I'm a great advocate of this sort of approach.  IMO, existing RPG modules are too restricted; they are indeed adventures or experieneces that players are subjected to, I think it would ber fair to say.

We've gone a long way toward articulating a language of RPG process, what with the shared imaginary space and whatnot, and it seems to me that Jack is right to think that a new, more useful approach to this sort of cooperation would be fruitful; indeed, even rescue RPG from the nich market as he describes.

IMO, though, such jartgon as we have is not yet sufficient for this purpose.  It's a step forward to address them as imaginary space modules, IMO, drawing attention to their actuality.  This is broad enougy to incorporate the single inn to the whole kingdom to the singular experience that would have been a scenario.  But establishing protocols for connection, formats, distinguishing the bits that are absolutely necessary from those which are customizable, is an effort only in its infancy at the moment.

[JackBauer]

IMO, though, such jartgon as we have is not yet sufficient for this purpose.  It's a step forward to address them as imaginary space modules, IMO, drawing attention to their actuality.  This is broad enougy to incorporate the single inn to the whole kingdom to the singular experience that would have been a scenario.  But establishing protocols for connection, formats, distinguishing the bits that are absolutely necessary from those which are customizable, is an effort only in its infancy at the moment.

Absolutely. In my opinion, we have gone far enough in adressing the actuality (what with "Shared Imaginary Space" and "Imaginary Space Modules"), so now, the next big step is to start adressing the specific protocols for such objects. Unfortunately, I am experiencing an idea block at the moment, so I may not be useful for awhile, but I encourage anyone with interest in this subject at The Forge to brainstorm and share ideas about that subject in this thread.

[ethan_greer]

So, an ISM would basically be cool ideas collated in a logical format for use by others in their own role-playing games, right? If I'm reading it right, I think a Wiki would be perfect for this.

[JackBauer]

I think you hit it right on the nose, Ethan. Now, is'nt Wiki that wierd site where everyone can edit it and there's no single controller of the website?
I've been reading some of the Instructions and FAQs on Wiki, but it's still a bit confusing. Ethan, if you can PM me with your own explanation to help me out I would appreciate it.