The relationship between character, sheet, and play

[Shreyas Sampat]

That's transparently obvious. There are a billion things that affect the game that are not part of the SIS - the rules system, the social contract, each player's individual expectations, the effects of weather on the players' moods, a butterfly flapping its wings in Tibet...

[Vaxalon]

And some of them are IMPORTANT.  Like the player's vision of the character.  Others are not important.

[Shreyas Sampat]

Again, transparently obvious.

I'm a little confused about the thrust of this thread here...where are we trying to express that we didn't all know beforehand?

[Vaxalon]

I think some people have read what I had to say, misconstrued it, conflated it with something else, and constructed arguments against that something else.

[Jason Newquist]

I think some people have read what I had to say, misconstrued it, conflated it with something else, and constructed arguments against that something else.

Sorry, Vaxalon!  Especially from your examples, it sounded to me like we had a conceptual mis-match about what was a character actually is made of.

[Vaxalon]

Oh, we probably do, Jason... but it's immaterial to the core of my point.

[Jason Newquist]

So here's a collection of statements which indicate where I think things sit right now.  I apologize if this is tedious or obvious.  I'm working this out for myself for the first time...

* Ad-hoc creations, like notes written on character sheets or RP among a sub-group during game dotwntime, might be valid and authoritative form of Exploration, or not, per social contract.  The events in which these things take place might or might not be instances of actual play.

* Those ad-hoc creations which are NOT authoritative forms of Exploration create game-inspired material.  Game-inspired material is not part of the SIS until it is brought (overtly or covertly) into actual play.  Game-inspired material may be useful ("important") in structuring what happens in actual play.

* When we say that a statement is "true" of SIS stuff, we mean that it is consistent with player consensus.  Some of the coolest game discussions occur when we try to make truth statements of complex SIS stuff.

* How consensus works in a highly distributed game (or any game, for that matter) doesn't seem to be well understood, either.  Is there a point where you get enough collaboration -- and where people who have no idea that this is going on and people who have dissenting opinions don't matter due to the otherwise overwhelming agreement and entrenchment of the thing into play?

* There are degrees of "acceptance into the SIS".  Someone can sit quietly and hear something totally cool and resolve to involve it in the game as much as possible.  Or, someone can sit quietly with reservations, and resolve to avoid something as much as possible, and remain satisfied if it's simply ignored -- but because they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, they don't cause trouble.  Or, I can sit quietly and interpret you to mean something else quite apart from what you mean, or what other people interpret you to mean.

* Our claims on the SIS which have not yet been Explored in actual play (and are thus not in the SIS themselves) constitute our personal vision of the SIS.  Having a personal vision of the SIS is a necessary part of play.  Nothing is accepted into play without being a part of someone's vision first.

-Jason

[Vaxalon]

I don't have any problems with any of that.