Mechanics, Contribution, and Doug the Dice Guy

[M. J. Young]

Perhaps to reiterate something I thought I said, I don't think we've got any consensus at all concerning the subject of this discussion. When we say "contribute", all by itself, what do we mean?

If we're asking who contributes to our game session, obviously the pizza guy does, and so does the owner of the building where we meet to play, and the manufacturer of the dice, and whoever made my clothes, and the utility company providing the heat.

If we're asking who contributes to the shared imagined space, we've got a much shorter list. At that point, anyone who contributes to the shared imagined space has to speak into it somehow.

The issue has been raised concerning a version of Will who interacts with the players, creating new material for the next session which someone else will run. In my most lawyerly manner, I would distinguish two version of this, and say that they are entirely different:[list=1][*]If Will writes up the new material and it is distributed to all the players so that they read it, or if it is read aloud by someone at the table in its entirety as a unit or in the order he intended without skipping anything at any point, recognized as what Will said was true in the shared imagined space, then Will is a player in the game. He is making one statement per session, doing so remotely, and being accepted into the shared imagined space as he does so. He then learns what was done from there, and prepares his next statement.[*]If Will writes up his materials and gives them to George the Game Master, and George reads them and uses them as his authority for what he announces in the game world, then Will is not a player--everything he contributes to play goes through George, and it is George, not Will, who decides what gets contributed to the shared imagined space, in what sequence, in response to what actions. He may reference Will as his authority for this, but Will has no credibility in this situation. Even if George were to call Will on the phone to ask a question, and then come back to the table saying, "This is what Will said," George is the person with the credibility; Will is the authority referenced, much the same as looking it up in the rule book.[/list:o]
I certainly agree that Will contributes to the game, and considerably more so than the pizza guy. I do not agree that he contributes to the shared imagined space, unless all the other players receive his contribution directly from him via his mode of communication, unfiltered by the editorial decisions of any other player.

--M. J. Young

[John Kirk]

Perhaps to reiterate something I thought I said, I don't think we've got any consensus at all concerning the subject of this discussion. When we say "contribute", all by itself, what do we mean?

I agree entirely.  Much of what is being debated here is caused by differences in how people define the term "contribute".  This is pointless, IMO, because the word itself is quite clear independent of any RPG considerations: "to furnish or supply in part".  If somebody creates something that adds to a work, he is 'contributing'.  There are other words that can be used to distinguish between different kinds of contributions, though, that could be used to clarify things a bit.

But, first, let me coin a new term to help out in describing the different types of contributions that I see: Proposed Shared Imaginary Space.  I'm not sure if another term already exists in the Forge jargon to cover this.  If there is, I'd appreciate someone pointing it out.  The Proposed Shared Imaginary Space is the current accepted SIS modified in some way as proposed by a player but before that modification has been adopted into the SIS.

As I see it right now, the types of contributions that can be made to the Proposed Shared Imaginary Space are:

1) Composition or Exposition: A player makes something up on the spot and introduces it into the PSIS.

2) Transcription: A player takes something that has been previously created and essentially copies it wholesale into the PSIS.

3) Variation: A player takes something that has been previously created and modifies it to some degree before introducing it into the PSIS.

Once the PSIS is established, the modifications it implies to the SIS can either be adopted or rejected.  But, only those players currently sitting around the table and experiencing the SIS can do so.  Will can't do it.  But, that doesn't mean he hasn't 'contributed' at all.  His contributions have been made either through George's Variations or Transcription of his materials.  George has also contributed, even if he transcribes Will's materials directly without adding anything of his own, by virtue of his proposal.

By the same token, we can rightly say that Tolkein contributes to any game based on Middle Earth.  His contribution is made by some player introducing some Transcription or Variation of his work into the Proposed Shared Imaginary Space and by having that adopted into the SIS by group consensus.

[John Kim]

I certainly agree that Will contributes to the game, and considerably more so than the pizza guy. I do not agree that he contributes to the shared imagined space, unless all the other players receive his contribution directly from him via his mode of communication, unfiltered by the editorial decisions of any other player.

Surely this depends on the degree of editorial change, doesn't it?  i.e. In practice, how different is the edited version from what Will wrote?  For example, suppose the GM is reading aloud boxed text that Will wrote.  He sees what he thinks is a typo and changes a word.  By your criteria, does that one change suddenly change Will from being a contributor to not?  

Let's take a common case in my experience from games.  So there is some written resource -- written background for the adventure or world background or similar.  So most people have read it, but it turns out that one player has not.  So we take a minute and explain to him the short form.  So what is the source for this?  

To my mind, this is very similar to everyone having read the text.  It doesn't make sense to call this a completely different contribution.

[M. J. Young]

In practice, how different is the edited version from what Will wrote?  For example, suppose the GM is reading aloud boxed text that Will wrote.  He sees what he thinks is a typo and changes a word.  By your criteria, does that one change suddenly change Will from being a contributor to not?

No, I'm going to argue that Will is not contributing in this case even if no changes are made to what he wrote.

My argument runs thus: the fact that there is a boxed text for Gary to read to the group implies that there is text that Gary is not supposed to read to the group but rather is supposed to assimilate himself and use as the basis for contributions which he will make to the shared imagined space. Thus Will's contribution to the game is not being communicated in its entirety to the group; it is being communicated to Gary, who is selectively communicating parts of it to the group. Gary is the gatekeeper for anything Will has written; Gary decides whether and when it becomes part of the shared imagined space. Even that boxed text which Will wrote which Gary reads does not enter the shared imagined space until Gary decides that it should do so. Will has not contributed directly to the shared imagined space; he has provided ideas from which Gary will draw to make such contributions.

So there is some written resource -- written background for the adventure or world background or similar.  So most people have read it, but it turns out that one player has not.  So we take a minute and explain to him the short form.  So what is the source for this?

To my mind, this is very similar to everyone having read the text.  It doesn't make sense to call this a completely different contribution.

I'll commend you for coming up with a difficult case; but I think that in this case which way it falls depends on information not given here.

[*]If we assume that this "background" is written by someone--such as Will--for use with this game, and limited in such a way that everyone who read the text would be imagining much the same thing from it actively at this moment, then the player who did not read the text is much the same as the player who missed last week's session. In last week's session the shared imagined space was updated by contributions between the players, but this player was not there and so needs to be updated on the current state of the shared imagined space so he can continue with the other players. In the same way, the player who didn't read the background material has missed that change in the shared imagined space and is being updated on what everyone else is imagining at this point.[*]If we assume instead that this "background" is something greater, like Middle Earth or Glorantha, such that it is not addressing the current situation specifically and so is not being actively imagined in any meaningful sense at this moment, then it is not a contribution to the shared imagined space, but an authority providing materials (in these examples setting materials) from which participants may draw with confidence as they contribute to the shared imagined space. Thus, using Middle Earth as an example, a player could say, "From here, the best way to avoid having to pass through Moria is to take the pass at Caradras and come down into Lothlorien on the other side." At the moment he says that, those places are entered into the shared imagined space. The setting materials in the books are the source and authority for those statements, but they are not in the shared imagined space until someone places them there.[/list:u]
I agree that there are close cases, and I'm not sure whether we really can say cleanly in every case which way it goes, but I do think there's always a difference.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Gary is the gatekeeper for anything Will has written; Gary decides whether and when it becomes part of the shared imagined space. Even that boxed text which Will wrote which Gary reads does not enter the shared imagined space until Gary decides that it should do so. Will has not contributed directly to the shared imagined space; he has provided ideas from which Gary will draw to make such contributions.

Let's compare to another field for a moment -- let's take movies.  According to your logic here, the only one who contributes anything to the imaginary space of the film is the editor.  After all, the screenwriter, the cinematographer, the actors, the set designers -- they all only contribute raw materials.  Only the editor controls the final step of what goes into the final cut.  Any piece of the film he can potentially cut.  

I don't see the point of saying that.  Sure, you can form jargon definitions so that this is strictly true according to your definitions.  But it's missing the point.  If you want to analyze roles in making a film, it makes sense to look at what the actors have contributed.  It makes sense to look at what the screenwriter has contributed.  

I would argue that the same thing is true of RPGs.  It makes sense to look at what Will has contributed, and compare that to what the GM and players have contributed.  

So there is some written resource -- written background for the adventure or world background or similar.  So most people have read it, but it turns out that one player has not.  So we take a minute and explain to him the short form.  So what is the source for this?

To my mind, this is very similar to everyone having read the text.  It doesn't make sense to call this a completely different contribution.

I'll commend you for coming up with a difficult case; but I think that in this case which way it falls depends on information not given here.

[*]If we assume that this "background" is written by someone--such as Will--for use with this game, and limited in such a way that everyone who read the text would be imagining much the same thing from it actively at this moment, then the player who did not read the text is much the same as the player who missed last week's session. In last week's session the shared imagined space was updated by contributions between the players, but this player was not there and so needs to be updated on the current state of the shared imagined space so he can continue with the other players. In the same way, the player who didn't read the background material has missed that change in the shared imagined space and is being updated on what everyone else is imagining at this point.[/list:u]

Right, but you missed my question.  What is the source?  i.e. Whose contribution is this?  My point was this -- you are insistent that only the gatekeeper actually contributes.  I feel this is an arbitrary line which doesn't make sense.  

So let's say we have players A, B, C, and D.  Now, if all four of them read the background sheet, then Will has contributed to the SIS.  Right?  They all saw his complete text.  But suppose three of them read it (A, B, and C); but D did not.  So C quickly explains it to D verbally.  Is it now C's contribution instead of Will's?  

To me, common sense is this:  If C explains it exactly as written, then it's still pretty much Will's contribution.  If C's explanation differs (by selection or distortion or whatever), then both C and Will have contributed -- with the degree depending on how much C changed.

[Marco]

MJ,

I (think) I understand what and why you are saying what you are saying. My assumption is that you are trying to make the term "contributes" be more valuable in discussion by giving it some specific meaning in our context (is present at the game, adds directly to SIS by means of negoitiation).

Is that right? I could see a motive for doing that (to refine the language we use to discuss gaming).

The problem is, I think it's wrong. And I think it does damage.

Some meanings from the Google dictionary
Contribute (v) : be conducive to.
Contribute (v) : provide.
Contribute (v) : To present as a gift to a charity or cause

The verb 'contributes' does not, in common language, have either the meaning or the connotations you are imparting to it. Walt is "conducive" to the game. He presents important materials as a gift to the cause of the night's entertainment. He certainly provides (or facilitates) stuff for the night's events.

If we are going to use the term 'contributes' in the sense you mean it then we need to say something like this:

"Walt does not contribute to SIS in the sense of actually being present at the game when the game is run (he does, however, contribute material that is used in the game)."

There's no problem with saying that--no one will disagree with it. It is clear. To take away the qualifiers is to add a layer of complexity or argument to the topic that will direct the listerner to go see thread 14266 on The Forge to understand what we are saying.

That isn't progress.

If we want to say that Walt doesn't play in the game in some sense then we need to say that. To say that he doesn't 'contribute' is jargonizing a real word that is really and correctly used when one says Walt does contribute--it's even correct if I say "Walt contributes a lot to the game--after all, he created the scenario, wrote up the mechanics, and made the characters[/i]!"

-Marco
[ Edit: the pizza guy thing is weak, IMO. If we were holding a charity event for some cause and a person brought pizza we might say he "contributed" as a joke (and thanks, Paul, for contributing the pizza tonight!) but in common conversation no normally functioning person would confuse the kind of contribuion that a volunteer who gives hours of his time phoning people for donations to someone who showed up with paid-for pizza (if Paul brought the pizza for free, though ... then yeah).

This is the slippery slope falacy: "If we use 'contributes' for Will, next people will be able to correctly say everyone in China contributed to the game via some form of the Butterfly Effect!"

Well, no--they won't--and if someone wants to discuss how Gygax 'contributed' to D&D or D&D 3.5ed then that's a discussion we can actually and profitably have. ]

[LordSmerf]

Everyone who mentioned that we are "jargonizing" the term "contribution" is dead on.  The thing is: the concept of negotiating things into the SIS, which I believe must be an active process, is important enough to get a label.  That's why we have jargon, to label things that we feel need labels.

I think that "contribution" is not a terrible mangling of the word, so it's a good candidate for jargonizing here.  I offer again: come up with a better term that we can use to label what we're talking about here and I'd be willing to use that instead.

An example from existing jargon: I didn't understand Simulationism as I currently do until someone pointed out that it's not really about "simulating" anything, rather it's about "emulating".  And then it clicked.  We still use the jargon of Simulation because it's an important concept which is easier to manipulate with a label.

Now, to address Marco's "slippery slope" fallacy.  The problem is, the pizza guy inarguably does "contribute" or perhaps "impact" the SIS.  He's late, he's early, he has bad hair, he's incredibly attractive, whatever.  The course that the game takes will, in fact, be influenced by the pizza guy.  Of course the pizza guy will have less influence than Will's massive game bible (or whatever), but he has influence none-the-less.

So the question becomes: "Is there a difference between the contributions they are making?"  And my (provisional) answer is "no".  It's a matter of degree, not of type.  At the most basic level Will is simply providing an input into the social situation, he is not actually actively participating in that social situation.  He may be actively participating in some other social situation (say through correspondence), but in the actual sitting around the table and playing situation he is not a participant.

So, again, if you object to using the term "contribute" to label what we're talking about feel free to offer something else, and the "slippery slope fallacy" isn't actually a fallacy in this case.

Thomas

[Marco]

Everyone who mentioned that we are "jargonizing" the term "contribution" is dead on.  The thing is: the concept of negotiating things into the SIS, which I believe must be an active process, is important enough to get a label.  That's why we have jargon, to label things that we feel need labels.

Thomas, man, I do not agree. I think we can say "contributing to SIS by way of participation during play" instead of saying "contributes." I think we can be specific about negoitating things into SIS. We have the words for that--we have the whole freaking language for that.

When we say Will does not contribute to the game (or even to the SIS) that's demonstrably wrong and it's demonstrably confusing (if you were about to argue that it's 'correct' to say that, you've proved my second point).

There's no need for this. If we feel "the need for labels" it's for some other purpose than clear communication. I'm not in love with Simulationist--but that's, at least, a made up word (yeah, someone else made it up with respect to RPG theory first--but those were the early days and even that has caused problems).

I mean, why not learn from the past? We don't need jargon for "is a player at the table who propses something that is accepted into SIS" we can just say that.

We can say that the hideous Pizza guy who trashed the game by showing up and scaring eveyone off did exactly that. We can be specific.

Taking a generally term that is correct in a number of usages and applying it in a single way is bad languaging. It's everything that is bad about jargon and nothing that is good about it.

Now, to address Marco's "slippery slope" fallacy.  The problem is, the pizza guy inarguably does "contribute" or perhaps "impact" the SIS.  He's late, he's early, he has bad hair, he's incredibly attractive, whatever.  The course that the game takes will, in fact, be influenced by the pizza guy.  Of course the pizza guy will have less influence than Will's massive game bible (or whatever), but he has influence none-the-less.

So the question becomes: "Is there a difference between the contributions they are making?"  And my (provisional) answer is "no".  It's a matter of degree, not of type.  At the most basic level Will is simply providing an input into the social situation, he is not actually actively participating in that social situation.  He may be actively participating in some other social situation (say through correspondence), but in the actual sitting around the table and playing situation he is not a participant.

Well, vast differences in scale are substantial differences (and that's what the ss-falacy refers to if you look at the 'slope' as the scaling factor). Would you be okay with a firecracker going off in your yard? Yes? A nuclear weapon? No.

Secondly to say that "there is no difference between the contributions they are making" is an interesting philosophical argument. What does it mean--that the guy who makes the adventure has the same type of impact on the game as the guy who delivers the food?

That would seem to indicate that all creators of adventures are equal to all people who deliver food (i.e. if we switch Paul and Will will the group notice a difference?)

I think it's pretty clear they will.

Why are we trying to hide from this? What does it gain us?

-Marco

[John Kim]

Everyone who mentioned that we are "jargonizing" the term "contribution" is dead on.  The thing is: the concept of negotiating things into the SIS, which I believe must be an active process, is important enough to get a label.  That's why we have jargon, to label things that we feel need labels.

I think that "contribution" is not a terrible mangling of the word, so it's a good candidate for jargonizing here.  I offer again: come up with a better term that we can use to label what we're talking about here and I'd be willing to use that instead.

Er, what about "playing" or "actively playing"?  I mean, you're looking for a term to distinguish an active participant in the game from someone who only contributes material, right?  This seems to match usage.  i.e. Everyone who is playing is involved in "negotiating things into the SIS".  No one who is not playing can do so.

[LordSmerf]

Marco,

You and I clearly disagree on the value of jargon, discussing that is probably beyond the intended scope of this thread.  I would be perfectly willing to discuss the value of jargon in a thread dedicated to its purpose or by PM.  Let me know.

When I say that the pizza guy and Will both provide the same "type" of contribution, I am basically saying that there are two "types" of contribution into the SIS.  The first is active participation in negotiating things into the SIS, which I'm wanting to hijack the word "Contribute" for.  The second are all the things that bound and impact what gets negotiated, which I call "Constraint" (essay forthcoming).  I believe that the difference between these two is important, very important.

Why?  Because as game designers we can't do anything about the first one directly.  The second however is what game design is all about.  In fact, design is about impacting the "contribution" through "constraint".

Now, I must admit that I may be too close the problem, I am in the middle of a big essay on the subject and probably have a bit of trouble stepping back from it.

I am by no means saying that this is the only possible way to break down what impacts and influences ("contributes" in the broader, non-jargon sense) the SIS, but I do believe that it is an incredibly useful breakdown.  I'm hesitant to say "the most useful" breakdown because I haven't really considered all that many possibilities, but it is the most useful one I've run across.

EDIT: Crossposted with John.  I'll have to think about it, but my first impression is a gut reaction of "no!" and a rational reaction of "why not?".  So, provisionally I accept "playing" as a useful way to describe this.

Thomas

[Marco]

Thomas,

If you want to use "contributes" in a certain way in your essay define it at the top (and use some bold characters). That way you can save some letters and people who even skim it will know what you mean.

I'm okay with that--but that isn't "jargonizing"--that's just using a specific definition for the purposes of the paper.

When we jargonize a word we are taking a term and saying "in our discourse there is now only one way to use it." When that leaves us saying that the guy who wrote the game, made the adventure, and created the characters "contributed nothing to the play session" we gotta step back a second and see what a complete failure to make sense has gotten us in return. In this case not much.

-Marco

[M. J. Young]

It looks like I've got a few things I have to tackle here; maybe I can clear it up this time.

I (think) I understand what and why you are saying what you are saying. My assumption is that you are trying to make the term "contributes" be more valuable in discussion by giving it some specific meaning in our context (is present at the game, adds directly to SIS by means of negoitiation).

I have several times said that this discussion is floundering because we are not agreeing in the use of the word "contributes". I have also specified that "contributes to the shared imagined space" and "contributes to the game" are two completely different concepts.

When I say that only the players communicating with each other are contributing to the shared imagined space, I mean specifically that. No one else is putting anything into their minds other than what they say (or write or otherwise communicate) to each other. That has nothing whatsoever with whether anyone else can contribute to the game, and I've asserted that the people who write the materials are indeed contributing to the game, they just aren't contributing directly to the shared imagined space, and they can't do that.

It occurred to me after I left yesterday that there is a very significant difference between Will I who designs the world and gives it to Gary and then has no further impact on play and Will II who gets word of what happened in the game and writes new material which is delivered to the group corporately. The difference is that at the moment Will II's contribution is received by the entire group, everyone is imagining much the same thing including Will II. Will I, by contrast, has no idea what the others are actually imagining at any point during play (that is, from when play in the scenario begins to when it ends), and even if he does he has no further input into it. He is not participating in the shared imagined space, because he isn't part of it.

Let's compare to another field for a moment -- let's take movies. According to your logic here, the only one who contributes anything to the imaginary space of the film is the editor. After all, the screenwriter, the cinematographer, the actors, the set designers -- they all only contribute raw materials. Only the editor controls the final step of what goes into the final cut. Any piece of the film he can potentially cut.

Except that a movie never actually produces a shared imagined space. It may have a progressive corporate vision--the story writer passes his vision to the scriptwriter, who changes it and passes it to the director, who attempts to get what he wants from the actors and other contributors, none of whom necessarily have the vision he has and some of whom are going to give him something different from what he wants, but overall there is no shared imagined space here. There are individual conceptions of what will be produced, and as it moves from the hands of one to the next it mutates, but it doesn't feed back to the previous contributors. Authors complain constantly that the screen versions of the books they write are completely wrong. Many excellent composers hate doing movie scores, because the music they create gets shredded in the process of putting together the film. The ultimate result of everyone's efforts is a movie, which ultimately is the final vision of whoever makes those last choices (usually the director). It does not produce a shared imagined space, and is not comparable to the RPG process.

Now, if all four of them read the background sheet, then Will has contributed to the SIS. Right? They all saw his complete text. But suppose three of them read it (A, B, and C); but D did not. So C quickly explains it to D verbally. Is it now C's contribution instead of Will's?

The problem I have with this is not really whether it's C or Will contributing to the shared imagined space at this point, but whether this genuinely represents a contribution to the shared imagined space at all. I don't know the answer to that. However, I've long had the practice in certain games to begin the session by reading one character's account of the events of the last session--journal entry, report to superior, letter home, something of that order. I do it to bring everyone back, kind of like saying, "In our last episode" and recounting where we are. No one imagines that that material is being read to the characters in the shared imagined space, or that those characters are recounting what happened to them during the last game session. That's not really happening in the shared imagined space, I think. It's happening between the players, bringing one player up to date concerning what has already happened in the shared imagined space that he missed.

Briefing a player on what he missed is not part of play.

Unlike Thomas, I am not arguing that "contributes" ought to be jargonized to mean one specific thing. I am arguing that "contributing to the shared imagined space" means one specific thing, and can only be done by people who communicate with each other about the content of that space and so share it between them.

I do agree that this is pretty much synonymous with "play"; however, "play" has the distinct disadvantage that we would have to explain frequently that it actually means "contributing to the shared imagined space" or some similar construction perhaps even more complicated than this. I'm not unhappy with "play" as long as no one else is unhappy with a definition that recognizes that this is what "play" involves.

Is that any better?

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Now, if all four of them read the background sheet, then Will has contributed to the SIS. Right? They all saw his complete text. But suppose three of them read it (A, B, and C); but D did not. So C quickly explains it to D verbally. Is it now C's contribution instead of Will's?

The problem I have with this is not really whether it's C or Will contributing to the shared imagined space at this point, but whether this genuinely represents a contribution to the shared imagined space at all. I don't know the answer to that.

OK, I'd like to narrow in on this key issue here.  In my understanding, the answer is relatively simple.  If everyone playing imagines roughly the same thing, then that thing is part of the Shared Imagined Space.  i.e. If everyone has read Tolkien and they agree to have Tolkienesque orcs in the world, then that background is part of the SIS.  The SIS is the intersection of what everyone at the table imagines about the gaming world.  If everyone playing thinks there are orcs, then orcs are part of the SIS.  It doesn't matter how it came about that everyone imagines it.

I gather you don't think that's true.  You have a set of criteria for whether something imagined in common is part of the SIS -- but I don't know quite what it is.  It seems to potentially depend on who invented it, when it was invented, when it was introduced, and who introduced it.  I know that verbal statements made up on-the-spot during tabletop play are undoubtedly part of the SIS in your view.  However, for all other cases, I'm not clear how you're deciding.  

Put back into the original question:  given any case of Will the Writing Guy, Doug the Dice Guy, George the Game Author, or a host of other possible characters.  How do you decide if they are contributing to the SIS?  My criteria would be this:  Does everyone who is playing imagine something which that person created or influenced?  If so, then that person (i.e. Will, Doug, George, etc.) contributed to the SIS.  What is your procedure or logic?

[Erick Wujcik]

Put back into the original question:  given any case of Will the Writing Guy, Doug the Dice Guy...

I'm just too distracted by Doug the Dice Guy!

Seriously, this is a concept I'd really like to see in action. And I can't help but imaging how the other players would react, and interact, given that Doug had such awesome powers.

Ideally our play test should involve a mega-super-powered comicbook game, where each of the players had the opportunity to come up with maxed-out crazy powerhouses... except for Doug the Dice Guy, who would have to play the 'Jimmy Olsen' zero-power average human; yet who would also be the most powerful force in the universe.

Cool!

Erick

[LordSmerf]

OK, I'd like to narrow in on this key issue here.  In my understanding, the answer is relatively simple.  If everyone playing imagines roughly the same thing, then that thing is part of the Shared Imagined Space.  i.e. If everyone has read Tolkien and they agree to have Tolkienesque orcs in the world, then that background is part of the SIS.  The SIS is the intersection of what everyone at the table imagines about the gaming world.  If everyone playing thinks there are orcs, then orcs are part of the SIS.  It doesn't matter how it came about that everyone imagines it.

I gather you don't think that's true.  You have a set of criteria for whether something imagined in common is part of the SIS -- but I don't know quite what it is.  It seems to potentially depend on who invented it, when it was invented, when it was introduced, and who introduced it.  I know that verbal statements made up on-the-spot during tabletop play are undoubtedly part of the SIS in your view.  However, for all other cases, I'm not clear how you're deciding.  

Put back into the original question:  given any case of Will the Writing Guy, Doug the Dice Guy, George the Game Author, or a host of other possible characters.  How do you decide if they are contributing to the SIS?  My criteria would be this:  Does everyone who is playing imagine something which that person created or influenced?  If so, then that person (i.e. Will, Doug, George, etc.) contributed to the SIS.  What is your procedure or logic?

I think that M.J. and I are on the same page on this one.  I'm leaning toward the idea that things aren't in the SIS unless they are actively being imagined.  We may all agree that there are Tolkein-esque orcs in the world, but that's not actually in the SIS until we are imagining it.  And we are not imagining anything until someone brings it up.  To bring something up you must be playing.

So: Will, George, the pizza guy, whoever: none of them are actually playing so none of their contributions can get into the SIS without some player being the gateway.  "And now you're attacked by orcs!" or "They're big, ugly, and smelly!"

Doug the Dice Guy is in a different situation.  In fact, I'm not sure whether he's playing or not.  I think he probably is, but I really don't know.

For the record: this discussion is helping me focus my essay on Constraint quite nicely.

EDIT: Typos and a bit of clarity.

Thomas