Mechanics, Contribution, and Doug the Dice Guy

[Marco]

To say that Will contributes nothing to SIS implies, strongly, that the SIS would likely be the same if he hadn't done any work. I think it's fair to say he doesn't participate in the SIS during the game (you could say he "participated in the act of getting the game together though) but to say he contributes nothing to the shared imaginings has implications that are clearly not true (i.e. that if we read Tolkien and imagine his orks vs. Warcrafts that the books were not a contributing factor to what we imagined).

MJ wrote:
Except that a movie never actually produces a shared imagined space.

Oh, I think it does. And I'm not the only one to say this--the idea of the communal viewing experience being important to movies isn't new. Stephen King writes about how he thinks authors use a "kind of telepathy" (he's being facietious, but only somewhat) in bringing a shared vision to their readership.

When an audience watches a movie they are all imagining the same things (the action on the screen) even without a feedback system to the director and actors. As with an RPG there may be cases where two viewers disagree on what was meant or even what was done (usually off screen--but sometimes even on screen: "Was Shane dead?").

We could say "The only contributors to the movie experience are the audience members and the projectionist."

That's, IMO, in effect what we are saying: when a movie is showing and I am watching, the only human contributors to my imagined experience are the other audience members (who contribute by gasping or whatever) and the projectionist who started the show.

I think we might have a hard time convincing people this is so. But that's not important. It's not about convincing ourselves that we have made a valuable discovery--its that by doing so we must take the stance that anyone who uses the term "contributes" to the SIS (and John said "the game" originally and the same people still argued--and I think this is telling) that they are using the word wrong.

What we are doing when we make this statement and really stick to it is telling the guy who says the director and the actors that contributed something to what was imagined that he is wrong.

I simply don't think we can say that.

There is no "real" Shared Imaginary Space out there--there's no *actual* telepathy going on. Every person is imagining the same things together and the fact that they line up has to do with all the shared-known-inputs to each person's mind (for example: the picture on the screen for the movie, the numbers on the character sheets in an RPG).

Since Will contributed some of those inputs (the character sheets, for example) then he is responsible for some of the congruence between what Player A and Player B imagine (Ragnar has a high Strength Score and the system models that in various ways--both player A and Player B imagine a strong character with help from that).

That's "part of the shared space."

That's a contribution (the character sheet the player brings to the table).

It was made by Will.

Ragnar's player doesn't even have to say anything or even do anything except have the sheet visible.

(Just like the projectionist doesn't add anything to the movie experience other than starting the machine).
-Marco

[LordSmerf]

Marco,

I think you may be beating a dead horse.  I have already stated (I hope clearly and explicitly) that I am willing to give up my attempts to jargonize "contribution" because "play" works just as well.  It is clear that Will contributes to play, but I am arguing that this contribution is qualitatively different from the contributions that are brought to bear during play.

I believe that M.J. is saying the same thing.  As far as I can tell no one is saying that Will does not impact (or as you say "contribute to") the SIS.  Such a proposal would be, as you say, ludicrous.  Where do you see people saying that?  I'm curious to see where this misunderstanding is coming from.

Thomas

[Marco]

Thomas,

I'm actually totally down with what you said (I think that for essay purposes your split is great so long as the meanings of the terms are clearly defined).

Wasn't arguin' with you.

MJ, on the other hand, said that he thinks Will does not contribute to SIS. He says this:

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.

Now, MJ is a smart guy--and what he is saying is, in a sense, entirely correct: Will is not there, at the gaming table, puttin' stuff into people's heads.

I think you and MJ want to distinguish that from the person who (and I'm guessin' at your usage) constrains what actual players introduce for admission into the game-space.

Will certainly constrains people's input in that, say, if Player Amy is given a character who is an archer she is constrained from bringing in ... :: thinks :: an Adpetus magican.

So I can see calling that prior-to-game-input a constriant.

The question is: is Will contributing to the *shared* imaginary *space* of the game? MJ says no. I say "yeah, I think so."

So we have to take a step back and say "what is that shared imaginary space, and how do things get into it?"

Now--John has a great essay that goes into this and if I've understood it right, I think the idea is this: SIS is a *construct* we discuss but not an "actual thing." That is, philosophically I have no idea how much my imaginary-space actually shares with yours--but we can see there are sort of touchpoints where what we are both imagining seems to line up.

One of these is the imaginary characters--which Will has provided. Now, you can look at these as a constraint (the barbarian is constrained from being imagined as weak because of his awesome strength score) and that's not a bad way to look at things--however, if you ask if Will contributed any of these touchpoints--which are the active agents of the sharing of the SIS--then I think the answer has to be yes.

Where I would draw the line is asking if Will participated in the play of the game. I think that a strong argument can be made that he did not.

This is semantics and the question is: is the bar set higher for participation or for contribution. It's a fine line to be sure and, ultimately, one could ask "did Will share in the activity of gaming?" and someone might answer yes.

None of this is actually proveable--all we will get is stronger or weaker arguments. But I think that saying he didn't contribute to the shared imagining is, IMO, weaker than saying he did not participate in the actual *act* of the players imagining things in the sense that he was not there.

But what I strongly think is that since Shared Imaginary Space is a term for a collection of touchpoints that we use to dicuss the concept of group imagining then anyone who creates such a touchpoint can certainly claim a "contribution" to SIS.

-Marco

[timfire]

I have also specified that "contributes to the shared imagined space" and "contributes to the game" are two completely different concepts.

I think it's fair to say he doesn't participate in the SIS during the game... but to say he contributes nothing to the shared imaginings has implications that are clearly not true.

This sure sounds like you're saying the same thing. At this point it seems that much of the discussion is simply sematics.

[M. J. Young]

I think we're all pretty close here; but I also think I've been asked to explain my position a little more clearly, so I'm going to attempt to do so.

I've got thirteen hardcover Original AD&D books here; they're probably all right here in my room, unless my kids have absconded with them. When I play, it's understood that whatever is in those books is part of the game world.

However, if I open to the index of the Monster Manual II and run down the list of creatures that appear in the three main monster books, I would bet a dollar to a dime that there are creatures there I can't quite remember, or that I would confuse with some other creature, or that I really never fully realized was here somewhere. What's an Achaierai? What about an Aleax?

If I can't even remember what these things are, they can hardly be said to be part of the shared imagined space. Yet they are indeed part of the world, and any player could presumably make reference to any of these at any time.

The books serve as an authority that define the potential setting, characters, and system of the game world. Nothing in the books really exists within the shared imagined space unless it has been mentioned. At that point it enters the shared imagined space.

Sure, there are orcs in Middle Earth; but if we're playing in Middle Earth, and no one has given them a thought (say we've been in Mirkwood and Fanghorn Forests, where spiders, Ents, Wood Elves, and possibly the occasional Goblin are our concerns (yes, I know that Goblins and Orcs are the same thing in Tolkien, but most people miss that, so we'll assume they're not)). Orcs do exist in the source material, and there's a sense in which our characters undoubtedly know that there are orcs and so do we--but if no one ever mentions them, they don't really exist within the shared imagined space.

Now, as soon as someone says, "Balin was killed by orcs in Moria," suddenly all of those items enter the shared imagined space. All of them are informed by whatever authorities we're using to define our Middle Earth. However, it was added to the shared imagined space by the person who said it, not by the books. The books were referenced as an authority to define how that statement was to be understood. If someone were later to say, "It's too bad that Balin was killed in that forest," someone else would say, "No, Moria is a mine, not a forest. I can show you in the books where it is." However, the books don't add Moria to the shared imagined space; they serve as an authority by which we define what Moria is if we in fact do add it. The same could be said for orcs. Tolkien and OAD&D orcs are short, probably five feet tall; Peter Jackson and 3E orcs seem to be taller, between six and seven feet, perhaps. Whatever orcs we're imagining are the kind that are in our shared imagined space. If someone comments on how tall they are and everyone agrees to that, then we're imagining tall orcs, even if our authority supports short orcs.

The contents of the books are not in the shared imagined space until we put them there. We have to put them there, actively, not by saying, "the contents of the books are in the shared imagined space" but by inserting individual items into the shared imagined space in play. It really doesn't matter if every player at the table and character in the game knows that there are orcs in middle earth--until someone states it as a reality within the game world, it's not being imagined, and until the details are defined it is not assumed that they are known or agreed.

The background is only as detailed as the references we make to it. If we never mention Moria or Lothlorien or Fanghorn, for purposes of the shared imagined space they don't really exist, because they're obviously irrelevant to our play--in much the same way as tapestries on the walls of imaginary castles. I know that medieval castle walls were covered with tapestries to keep the places warm; I don't know whether all my players know this. It doesn't matter whether or not there are tapestries on the walls until someone mentions it. The existence or non-existence of such tapestries is not part of the shared imagined space--even if it happens that we were all imagining bare walls until it was mentioned, we didn't share it. We might all have been wrong, and agreed that we were wrong at some later point. "You know, it hadn't occurred to me, but there must be tapestries on all these walls. Let's look behind them." Bingo; suddenly tapestries have entered the shared imagined space, as if they had always been there, even though they are contrary to what everyone had envisioned a moment before. Bingo; orcs entered the world when someone mentioned them, as if they had always been there, even though no one had given any thought to them before.

Something is only part of the shared imagined space if all the players are cognizant of it, and that happens because communications between the participants have created that awareness. Mutual familiarity with the same authority is not the same thing. Just because the monster manuals mention the Zorbo and the Zygom does not mean these are part of the shared imagined space, until someone communicates the existence of such creatures in the game.

Did that answer it?

Footnote: the telling thing about Doug the Dice Guy is that his numbers are not random nor otherwise dissociated, but evaluative. That makes him a contributor to the shared imagined space, because he is listening to what is said and tagging it with a numeric value that represents its coolness, likelihood of success, or similar entirely subjective judgment.

--M. J. Young

[LordSmerf]

M.J. just said everything I wanted to, only better.

Thomas

[John Kim]

What's an Achaierai? What about an Aleax?

If I can't even remember what these things are, they can hardly be said to be part of the shared imagined space. Yet they are indeed part of the world, and any player could presumably make reference to any of these at any time.

The books serve as an authority that define the potential setting, characters, and system of the game world. Nothing in the books really exists within the shared imagined space unless it has been mentioned. At that point it enters the shared imagined space.

OK, here I think I see the difference.  To me, nothing exists within the shared imagined space unless it has been imagined.  I consider this pretty obvious and intuitive.  If you didn't remember the Aleax, then you weren't imagining it and thus it isn't part of the shared imaginary space.  

Here's what I find strange.  Let's take a game with pregenerated characters, like my mystery game http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/murder/business.html">The Business of Murder.  According to your view, the SIS will change radically depending on whether players get their background through reading the sheets before the game vs having it verbally stated at the start of the game.  If it's only there from reading, then it isn't part of the SIS and won't be until it is explicitly verbally referenced.  

To my mind, it doesn't matter.  What's important is what the players imagine.  Following Ralph's advice, let me take an actual play example.  Take my recent http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/jamesbond007/campaign.html">James Bond 007 campaign.  Now, it was set in the early 1980's.  That makes a huge difference in terms of how people pictured everything: i.e. what people looked like in clothes and dress; the attitudes; the culture; and so forth.  But honestly, I don't know when I first verbally referred to this during the actual game.  We firmly established it in pre-game discussion and email, but it might not have been explicitly verbally stated for a while.  

By your view, it wasn't actually set in the eighties until that was explictly stated in-game.  Thus , there was a sudden dramatic shift in the "Shared Imaginary Space" when the year was first verbally mentioned.  In my view, it was set there from the start because that is how the players imagined it.  It was imagined in common.  It doesn't matter whether it was stated early in the session or read beforehand.  If everyone is thinking/imagining it, then it is part of the SIS.  

Footnote: the telling thing about Doug the Dice Guy is that his numbers are not random nor otherwise dissociated, but evaluative. That makes him a contributor to the shared imagined space, because he is listening to what is said and tagging it with a numeric value that represents its coolness, likelihood of success, or similar entirely subjective judgment.

OK, here you have another qualification -- i.e. that it has to be subjective judgement.  So, suppose Doug says a number.  How do I know whether he's contributed to the SIS or not?  I have to know how internally he came up with that number.  I might be fooled into thinking it was really a contribution to the SIS, only to find out later he just looked at the second hand of his watch for the number.  

Just as before, in my view of SIS, it doesn't matter.  If everyone imagines the same thing on the basis of what Doug said, it doesn't matter whether Doug decided based on coolness, hotness, time of day, or astrology.

[LordSmerf]

By your view, it wasn't actually set in the eighties until that was explictly stated in-game. Thus , there was a sudden dramatic shift in the "Shared Imaginary Space" when the year was first verbally mentioned. In my view, it was set there from the start because that is how the players imagined it. It was imagined in common. It doesn't matter whether it was stated early in the session or read beforehand. If everyone is thinking/imagining it, then it is part of the SIS.

I believe M.J. answers this here:

The background is only as detailed as the references we make to it. If we never mention Moria or Lothlorien or Fanghorn, for purposes of the shared imagined space they don't really exist, because they're obviously irrelevant to our play--in much the same way as tapestries on the walls of imaginary castles. I know that medieval castle walls were covered with tapestries to keep the places warm; I don't know whether all my players know this. It doesn't matter whether or not there are tapestries on the walls until someone mentions it. The existence or non-existence of such tapestries is not part of the shared imagined space--even if it happens that we were all imagining bare walls until it was mentioned, we didn't share it. We might all have been wrong, and agreed that we were wrong at some later point. "You know, it hadn't occurred to me, but there must be tapestries on all these walls. Let's look behind them." Bingo; suddenly tapestries have entered the shared imagined space, as if they had always been there, even though they are contrary to what everyone had envisioned a moment before. Bingo; orcs entered the world when someone mentioned them, as if they had always been there, even though no one had given any thought to them before.

Of course the game is "set in the 80's".  In fact, the fact that it is the 80's is an important constraint: whenever anyone begins to describe what someone is wearing, or what a car looks like, or what music is playing in the background it is all informed by the fact that the game is set in the 80's.

Is "the game is set in the 80's" part of the SIS?  I don't think it is, I think that that idea is just too big to be a part of SIS.  "Set in the 80's" doesn't actually mean anything on its own, and it isn't important except in the ways it constrains us: Culture, Communism, whatever.

Does that clarify at all?

As to Doug the Dice guy, I think that Nathan (Paganini) may have this one right, but I'm not sure.  Doug is not actually adding anything to the SIS, he is selecting from a set of choices picked out by the actual players.  Do his choices matter to the SIS?  Are his choices influencing what people imagine?  Sure, but in the exact same way that dice do.

Thomas

[M. J. Young]

I'm definitely going to thank Thomas for his help; that was what I would have said.

Let's take a game with pregenerated characters, like my mystery game http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/murder/business.html">The Business of Murder.  According to your view, the SIS will change radically depending on whether players get their background through reading the sheets before the game vs having it verbally stated at the start of the game.  If it's only there from reading, then it isn't part of the SIS and won't be until it is explicitly verbally referenced.

What's not clear to me about this example is the nature of those sheets. Let me distinguish two possibilities.

[*]Everyone receives exactly the same information sheet. It is concise, and describes the starting situation in sufficient detail that everyone knows where we begin. Presumably the referee passed these out at the start of play; or if there is no referee, it was agreed that this would be the starting point information. At that moment, this information conveyed by this authority was entered into the shared imagined space, either as a communication from the referee to the players (it doesn't matter whether it was spoken or written, the referee determined that the players needed to read this before they began play) or by mutual communication between the players. The fact that John Kim wrote this is incidental; at this moment, the players submit it into the shared imagined space, and the players accept it.[*]Everyone receives individualized information concerning his character. At that point, we have entered the very foggy area in which we have to ask ourselves to what extent can there be information in the shared imagined space that has not been shared and is not being imagined at all? This is that fuzzy area of player secrets--that this one player (including the referee) "knows" something about a character or location or object or event which no one else knows. Everyone implicitly agrees that there may be such "secrets" within the shared imagined space--but do they really "exist" within that space? I'm inclined to say that they really do not. Thus the personal information about each character that appears on that player's briefing sheet is not really part of the shared imagined space. It is an authority from which the player can now draw as the game progresses, but it's not part of the shared imagined space until the player enters it into the game. So, to illustrate, Agatha Christie's Miss Jane Marple is a fluffy somewhat absent-minded seeming little old grandmother sort. Margaret Rutherford gets that part, and doesn't want to play a fluffy little old lady, so she ignores all that stuff and delivers a Miss Jane Marple who is aggressive, self-assured, and pushy. What is on the paper is one set of information; what is in the shared imagined space disagrees with it completely. Since of those present only Margaret Rutherford knows that what Agatha Christie wrote doesn't match what she's playing, the content of the authority is irrelevant--only what actually is delivered within the game impacts the shared imagined space.[/list:u]
To the degree that your handouts do both of these, they are both of these. However, you, John Kim, are not submitting them to the shared imagined space. You are offering them to the players, who are deciding whether, when, and how to submit them to the shared imagined space. So for example you might tell them that they should read this aloud before play begins, and someone there decide that it would save time to print it up and send it to the players before they come to the game that night; or it could be reversed; or someone could decide that there was too much, or not enough, information in what you offerred, and change it before passing it out. You have provided an authority for what should be done; they get to decide what is done with it. Until it is communicated uniformly to the players, it's not really part of the shared imagined space.

In regard to the aforementioned secret information, I'm inclined to think that these things are not really part of the shared imagined space; they are, rather, presumed causes for events that occur within it, with the expectation that the other players seeing the effects will attempt to extrapolate the causes. I've read accounts of referees who had an unstated backstory, released the clues into the shared imagined space, heard the players trying to work out what was behind it, and liked their explanation so much better than his own that he changed the secret backstory to match what they had decided. So, what's really in the shared imagined space? The secret backstory never is; the ultimately revealed story is what is in the shared imagined space. Similarly, secret information about characters on papers are not in the shared imagined space. The impact those secrets have on play are there, but if the explanation is never revealed, the secret isn't part of what is shared.

As Thomas says, when someone realizes there must be tapestries on the walls, the shared imagined space doesn't "change" in the sense that it is different; it changes in the sense that it is more clearly defined. When your James Bond group agrees to the Eighties as a background, they have agreed to allow a shared recollection of what that decade was like to be an authority referenced in defining contributions to the shared imagined space. Thus if someone spots a Delorean, everyone checks their internal authority and agrees that Deloreans did exist, even if they were rare; if someone mentions President Clinton, everyone points out that he's not yet in office, and that the President is either Reagan or Bush. Neither the Delorean nor the President were part of the shared imagined space prior to being mentioned; "set in the eighties" is the authority by which we establish whether contributions are valid.

OK, here you have another qualification -- i.e. that it has to be subjective judgement.

That was stipulated in the original description of Doug--that he chose the number by reacting to the statement made by the players. I have previously said that if Doug is generating random numbers or next in sequence number streams he is an authority, not a contributor. Your objection would seem to be that if we don't know which he's doing we don't know whether he's contributing to the shared imagined space. I don't really see why that's an objection. Is there some reason why everyone involved in the game would have to actually know who else was involved in the game? If I'm in a PbEM game in which all the players are using screen names, and I don't know that my wife is on the other computer contributing to the same game under some other name, does that mean she's not contributing to my shared imagined space because I don't know it's her? That's not a good example; here's a better one. If in that game the referee is also secretly playing one of the player characters, does it matter that I think they're two different people, and they aren't? If we ask Doug how he picks the numbers and he says he's not paying any attention to what we're all doing, but just checks his watch when we ask him, then we assume he's not participating. If when we ask him he says that he listens to what the player says he does, decides how cool that would be, and gives it a numerical rating based on that coolness factor, then we know he's involved in intelligently interactively influencing the progress of the game. If he lies to us, then we think one thing when it's actually the other--but it doesn't change whether or not he is contributing to the shared imagined space, only whether or not we realize it.

I see a substantial difference between Doug saying, "I really want this to work, so I'm going to give it a seventeen" and Doug saying, "Let's see--the second hand says fifty-seven, and if I get rid of twenty twice that leaves me with seventeen, so that's what I'll say." Even though it is the same number in the example, it is given for entirely different reasons, and so is a difference in kind in relation to how involved Doug is in influencing the shared imagined space. In the one case, he intends to influence it in a specific direction. In the other case, his opinion on what should happen is irrelevant and he has carefully isolated any thoughts he might have from having any impact on the game.

--M. J. Young

[LordSmerf]

I'm basically with M.J. on Will the Writing Guy and all this stuff on "authority" which is very much a part of what I'm talking about with "constraint" (it may even be synonymous).  That said, I don't think that we totally agree on Doug the Dice Guy, here's my take:

I see a substantial difference between Doug saying, "I really want this to work, so I'm going to give it a seventeen" and Doug saying, "Let's see--the second hand says fifty-seven, and if I get rid of twenty twice that leaves me with seventeen, so that's what I'll say." Even though it is the same number in the example, it is given for entirely different reasons, and so is a difference in kind in relation to how involved Doug is in influencing the shared imagined space. In the one case, he intends to influence it in a specific direction. In the other case, his opinion on what should happen is irrelevant and he has carefully isolated any thoughts he might have from having any impact on the game.

I don't think that I see a substantial difference between these two cases.  Yes, there is a difference, and yes these two cases result in different play, but I don't think it is due to a difference in type of interaction.  Basically, I think that either method that Doug uses to choose his numbers, he is acting in the exact same manner as dice.

I'll say what I said before: In the scenario presented (where the only thing Doug does is provide numbers for resolution) Doug never adds anything to the SIS.  He does the exact same thing that dice do, namely he makes a selection from a set of possible inputs determined by the actual players of the game.

Let's say that they're playing d20, but they don't have dice, so Doug gets drafted to pick numbers.  Doug has a definate impact on what enters the SIS, but he can only pick from a set of pre-defined choices: critical failure, failure, success, critical success.  He may not have perfect control over which one he picks, but he can never do anything other than take a proposed addition to the SIS ("I hit the orc!") and say "yes" or "no" to it.  If Doug picks a 1, indicating a critical failure, he still doesn't have any control over what that actually means within the SIS.

What I am saying here is that Doug is not actually playing the game.  There is no fundamental difference between Doug picking numbers truly at random and Doug picking numbers based on what he thinks is cool.

What I am not saying is that there is no practical difference because it seems pretty clear that there is one.  To look at it from a Gamist perspecitive: if Doug chooses numbers at random then the Step On Up is to calculate odds, if Doug chooses numbers based on what he thinks is cool then the Step On Up is to come up with stuff that Doug thinks is cool.

Further, while I don't think that there is a fundamental difference between Doug and actual dice, there is clearly a practical difference.  There is social baggage involved with Doug.  It's much, much harder to "fudge" Doug's input.  Presumably you can't just say, "Doug we want you to arbitrate die roll values," and then toss his arbitration out whenever you like.  Doug, unlike dice, is a persron with feelings.

One more time: Doug is not playing the game.  Doug is fundamentally equivalent to actual dice in that he is not adding anything to the SIS, but is instead choosing from a set of additions proposed by the players.  If all Doug does is pick a number, regardless of the criteria he uses, then Doug is not playing the RPG (he may be playing some other game, I'm not sure).  If Doug is able to suggest possible outcomes for selection, rather than simply choosing from a list of outcomes defined for him by some other source, then Doug is playing the RPG.

EDIT: After further thought I have come to the conclusion that while Authority and Constraint are closely related, they are distinctly different things.  Just so you know...

Thomas

[Caldis]

I think everyone is pretty much in agreement here the only thing being bandied about is exact definitions.  To make it simple can we all agree that Will is contributing to the game but he is not a player in the game?  (by player I include the GM)  His contributions come either before or after the game takes place and are not part of the in game negotiations(though they certainly influence them).

[M. J. Young]

I don't think that I see a substantial difference between these two cases.  Yes, there is a difference, and yes these two cases result in different play, but I don't think it is due to a difference in type of interaction.  Basically, I think that either method that Doug uses to choose his numbers, he is acting in the exact same manner as dice.

I don't think it's that important to resolve this hypothetical at least until Erick writes the game that does this. However, let me see if I can explain why I think what I think on this point, and we'll leave it at that.

Let's remove Doug from the equation entirely. Now we have Paul Player telling Gary GM what he wants to do. In one game, Gary GM rolls the dice, and then interprets the dice according to the game mechanics to provide authority for what he's about to say. In the other game, Gary listens to what Paul says and decides, entirely on whether he likes it or not, whether to let that happen. That's the difference between a fortune and a drama mechanic.

Now we're going to get rid of the dice but we're also going to get rid of the referee fiat, and both games are going to rely on Doug the Dice Guy. In the first game, Doug replaces the dice by giving random numbers with no relation to the statements made in play. However, in the other game, Doug takes over the position of interpreter of coolness, as it were--some of the referee credibility has now been apportioned to him, because he gets to say how "good" that last move was based entirely on whether he wants it to succeed or not.

The Doug who picks numbers randomly or by some method unrelated to the shared imagined space serves as an authority based upon which credible statements are made. The Doug who picks numbers in response to statements made contributes to the shared imagined space as a means of influencing the shared imagined space (that is, he wants to see things succeed or fail) via his credibility.

Let me approach it a slightly different way.

In this Universalis-like game, and each player is dealt fifteen cards. Each card has a value for "making things happen". Whenever anyone contributes something to the shared imagined space that anyone doesn't like, they can challenge it by playing a card from their hand--one card only, whatever card they want. The person who made the statement can also play one card to defend the statement. Everyone must then play a card either for the statement or for the challenge, whatever card they want. Whichever side has the greatest value sum of cards played for it, that's what happens. However, no one can replace their cards until all the cards have been played, so spending high cards means you won't have them later--but the deal is random, so you might have more high cards than everyone else, or they might have more than you. In this case, the resolution mechanic itself is based on apportioning credibility not in the player but in the statement made: players endorse or oppose statements directly, indicating the degree to which they want that statement to be part of the shared imagined space. The cards in their hands represent the amount of credibility they're authorized to weild this hand, and each time they play to a contested statement they are exercising that amount of credibility in support of their choice.

We'll change it now. Only Doug and Gary have any cards; they each have fifteen of them, and can replace them all when the last one is played. Whenever a statement is made the outcome of which is challenged, Doug has to play a card indicating the degree to which he wants it to happen, and Gary has to play a card indicating the degree to which he wants to block it. Once again, their respective credibility is measured by the cards. Doug plays "Ten says it happens"; Gary plays "Three says it doesn't." That means Doug wins, and it happens--it also means that Doug has exercised ten points of his credibility to make it happen.

We'll change it once more. Gary doesn't have any cards. Instead, he has charts and tables that tell him what card Doug has to play at minimum to make any particular thing happen in the game world. Doug does not have access to these charts and tables. He hears something, he says, "I want that to happen, and I'm willing to play this eight to make it happen." Gary looks at the charts and announces whether or not it happens based on that. This is the same exercise of credibility on Doug's part, as measured in the cards.

Now if we take the cards away, Doug is still exercising credibility in declaring the value he gives to a contribution to the shared imagined space. What's lacking is any limitation on the variation in values Doug can give--other than that the game would get boring fast, he can rate everything ten, or everything two. Whether he does that or not, it's still the case that he is contributing to the shared imagined space in exactly the same way as the referee who decides by fiat whether something works or not, by exercising his own credibility to evaluate the likelihood of success.

So it's an exercise of credibility, not authority, on Doug's part, and that means he is contributing to the shared imagined space.

I'm splitting hairs, sure--but it is painted intentionally to be a very close hypothetical case, so it calls for hair splitting. If anyone is not convinced, as I say it doesn't much matter, at least until we see the game that does this. (Go, Erick!)

In response to Caldis, I can agree that Will contributes to the game, but not to the shared imagined space unless he has a feedback loop by which he receives the current state of the shared imagined space and makes an open statement to the group by which he changes it. Does that fit your compromise?

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

I'm splitting hairs, sure--but it is painted intentionally to be a very close hypothetical case, so it calls for hair splitting. If anyone is not convinced, as I say it doesn't much matter, at least until we see the game that does this. (Go, Erick!)

In response to Caldis, I can agree that Will contributes to the game, but not to the shared imagined space unless he has a feedback loop by which he receives the current state of the shared imagined space and makes an open statement to the group by which he changes it.

Well, I can see some of the criteria that you're using to make up a "Shared Imaginary Space", but I can't see the point of all the splitting.  Anyhow, I'm with Erick.  I intend to try out having a Dice Guy position and see how it goes.  

I'm a bit mystified at the convoluted logic to determine what is or is not in SIS.  But anyhow, I'll be away offline for a week and a half.  If you want to hash it out a little more, that's fine, but I'm done with the thread.