Character, Sheet, and Play Revisited

[M. J. Young]

In The relationship between character, sheet, and play Fred (Vaxalon) wrote of character secrets not being part of the shared imagined space.  I disagree.  

I'm very sorry I missed this thread; my computer crashed the first weekend of April, and this past week I have finally been able to get online (somewhat sporadically, at that) and try to catch up with everything everywhere.  So I'm late coming to the party, but I hope I can add something.

I think that if something is known to any one of the participants in the game and that something has any impact on the way any character is played or any event unfolds, it is present in the shared imagined space.

Good examples can be adduced from setting elements.  In most games, we all agree that there are objects and places within the setting of which we may presently be unaware; we accept that there is secret information.  There is this tacit understanding that the shared imagined space contains elements which I don't know, or which you don't know, but which someone knows.  If the presence of the undiscovered secret door influences the way the referee moves the orcs (e.g., some of the orcs are not in the main battle force because they are covering the potential retreat through the secret door which they, but not the player characters, know to be there) then the secret door is part of the shared imagined space because some actions or events within it were impacted by its existence.  Even if the rest of us never discover the door, even if the orcs we do face are sufficient in force to kill us all and the game ends here, that door existed.

In the same way, Fred describes a character who, according to his notes, is possessed by a demon.  The other players are not told that the character is possessed by a demon, but the character's actions are predicated on that fact.  How is the fact of the possession not part of the shared imagined space, if the actions of the character are built on that?  Every player in the game knows what the character is doing.  That we don't know it's because of that demon in him does not alter the fact that the presence of that demon is having very clearly observable impact on the game.

In OAD&D's Oriental Adventures rules it is possible to roll the detail about your character that there is an ancestral family alliance with some other family.  That's the sort of detail that gets plopped on your sheet and oft times forgotten.  However, rolling that detail increases the honor of the family, which has a mechanical impact on the character's relationships with non-player characters.  It may be that the specific fact of this alliance will never arise in play; however, if my player knowledge of that alliance impacts my understanding of the character such that I play him a bit more noble, a bit more confident, a bit more cosmopolitan--if the unrevealed fact that my great great great great grandfather fought alongside Parsimonius the Great has any impact on my representation of the character at all, then that fact has impacted play, and so exists within the shared imagined space.

The same applies to what Jason was calling the "vision" for the character.  Since my "vision" for my character is the definition of how I play him, the details of that vision are part of the shared imagined space to the degree that they are realized.  That is, if I see my character as a future barbarian king, that doesn't make him a barbarian king; but it will impact how the character acts now, whether he is supposed to know this or not (that is, am I imagining that my character aspires to be the king, or am I imagining that events will conspire to thrust this role upon him?).  I'm playing the guy I expect will be king, and I play him differently because of it.

To focus a bit more clearly, though,

There can be information on the character sheet that is important to play, but is not part of the SIS. The SIS is not the sum total of the game.

I think not; that is, I think that the shared imagined space is the sum total of the game as it currently stands.  Materials on the character sheet that have not been introduced within the shared imagined space have the force of player intentions.

To compare this outside role playing, when I play chess with someone, I usually have a few ideas in mind of what sort of strategy I want to use.  I'll initiate that strategy; I'll adjust it according to the response I get from my opponent.  However, I'm not a terribly good chess player--it's entirely possible that everything I think I'm going to do gets blown out the window within the first few moves of a skilled opponent.

The personal notes on a character sheet in a role playing game have roughly the same impact as my intended strategy in the chess game.  They outline what I want to have become real in the shared imagined space, and they impact my initial choices therein.  That makes them real in the shared imagined space to the degree to which my actions have been based on them, because their presence on the sheet and in my mind has influenced imagined events.

What may be more difficult is considering whether those notes on the sheet can be erased.  If our character is initially played as demon-possessed, for example, and then at the second session we decide that this isn't really what we want, can we cross out the notes that say he is demon possessed, and continue from there?  This is not easily answered.  Obviously, if there is an abrupt change in the personality of the character, other players are going to wonder at it, and it may be disruptive.  On the other hand, if another explanation for his prior conduct can be adduced and future actions based on the assumption that it is this alternative explanation that drives character actions, then it might be successful.  Still, I would maintain that crossing out the fact that this person is demon possessed (and replacing it perhaps with the idea that he's really just a crotchety old codger who at the beginning of the game was privately wallowing in the anniversary of his wife's death and is now getting past that to participate in life again) actually makes a subtle change in the shared imagined space, one which is felt by all to some degree but might be written off to my failure to play the character fully consistently, or my efforts to explore who this guy really is in a way that won't derail play for everyone else.  You can backwrite such changes, particularly if the details are not known, but they remain changes in the shared imagined space.

Also, particularly for John, when I speak of character sheets as "authorities" I don't mean that in the way most people would take the word.  I specifically mean that they have the same sort of authority that case law has in courts and scriptures have in theology:  we base our decisions on them, and appeal to them to provide support for those decisions.  I covered this in my recent Places to Go, People to Be article, Theory 101: System and the Shared Imagined Space, which I know you read, but I thought I'd mention it here to avoid confusion.  It is not so much that we are bound by the strictures of our character sheets, but that we can appeal to these to support our decisions.

Also, in this regard, the fact that no one else ever has, does, or will look at my character sheet does not make it any less an authority in this sense.  You suggested (if I understood you aright) that the character sheet serves to remind you of the character's personality, abilities, and other details.  That is exactly what an authority does:  it reminds us of what we have already accepted as true, real, or agreed.  If I remember that my character has a 15 strength, that's fine; if I look up the character sheet to see that he has a 15 strength, and it reminds me of this, I am relying on its authority to provide the correct information when I need the reminder.

There were many other comments, posts, and threads that fell to the second page in my absence; some even asked me to comment. I can only apologize for my extended absence, and thank you all for your thoughts.

--M. J. Young

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I have to agree with you, MJ.  The character sheet is the embodiment of the character in tangible reality.  It is what the Imagined Character IS as far as mechanics go (I'm not dealing with personality and demeanor in this discussion).  All his abilities and traits- known and unknown, used and unused- make up that character.  Not everything on the character sheet necessarily has Meaning in the SIS, but it does exist in the SIS for all intents and purposes if solely for the reason the character exists in the SIS- even if it's not formally introduced.

Lots of things in the SIS do not have a formal introduction.  Often things like gravity, the atmospheric make up, magnetic poles, the coloring of the human inhabitants, and so on and so forth are often taken for granted even though no one ever mentions them and they rarely come into play.  Just as a character's proficiency at underwater basket weaving may never get utilized, it's still there.

Anyway, yeah, I think you have a great point, MJ.

Peace,

-Troy

[Stefan / 1of3]

Lots of things in the SIS do not have a formal introduction.  Often things like gravity, the atmospheric make up, magnetic poles, the coloring of the human inhabitants, and so on and so forth are often taken for granted even though no one ever mentions them and they rarely come into play.  Just as a character's proficiency at underwater basket weaving may never get utilized, it's still there.

I'd say, there is a clear distinction between things, that are not formally introduced and things that are not introduced at all, yet (like UW basket weaving).

The former are already shared and therefore in Shared Imaginary Space. The latter are not, they are only part of a Personal Imaginary Space, and maybe not even that. The player might have forgotten about the basket weaving himself, but it is still - somewhere.

It might be useful to find a term for this somewhere together with all personal and shared imaginary spaces.

[MatrixGamer]

In the same way, Fred describes a character who, according to his notes, is possessed by a demon.  The other players are not told that the character is possessed by a demon, but the character's actions are predicated on that fact.  

I can see how this would be out of the shared imagined space. Imagine that this character is part of the players lives form a year of real time play. They share many game experiences with that NPC never knowing the "truth." The characters then move to another continent and never see the NPC ever again. The demonness was never part of the shared imagined space, any more than the souls of each PC was.

This reminds me of the way vampires were treated in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." In the premier vampires are NOT the person they were. They are a monster who has stolen the person's body and MUST BE DESTROYED!!! By the fifth season Harmony the Vampire is comic relief who goes over to Angel to have popcorn parties with Cordellia and then works as a secretary in Wolfram Hart.  The soul or soulessness of vampires was known up front. It was shared imagined space. It's nature changed as years went on as we came to like Spike, Harmony etc. If there was a character who was a monster but no one ever knew and it never played a part in the stories how could that be part of the imagined space?

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Valamir]

In the same way, Fred describes a character who, according to his notes, is possessed by a demon. The other players are not told that the character is possessed by a demon, but the character's actions are predicated on that fact. How is the fact of the possession not part of the shared imagined space, if the actions of the character are built on that? Every player in the game knows what the character is doing. That we don't know it's because of that demon in him does not alter the fact that the presence of that demon is having very clearly observable impact on the game.

I don't think I can agree with you MJ.  This seems predicated on the idea that things have an independent existance outside of the SIS.  Clearly if only Fred knows that he his possessed by a demon then that information is not shared.  I've previously brought up what I think is the difference between Individual Imaginary Space, and Shared Imaginary Space.  I think that this is clearly part of Fred's Individual Imaginary Space but until it goes through the standard offer and acceptance proceedure of System it can't be considered part of the SIS.

In fact, No Myth would seem to confirm this.  Consider that part way through the campaign, the GM introduces a race of mind control aliens into the campaign...<bing> a light goes on for Fred...he's not, it turns out, possessed by a demon...he's been possess by mind controlling aliens.  Until that fact enters the SIS it can be erased and changed and mucked around with nearly at will because it doesn't have any independent existance of its own.

Fred's character being possessed by a Demon is not fact...its just potential fact.

[MatrixGamer]

What about this angle.

What if I imagine Fred's character is possessed by a demon but I don't tell him. I role play my character according to my belief but no more. My actions in the game are part of the shared imagined space. Fred might wonder why I don't like him. He may wonder why I keep pouring holy water on him. As  player I'm wondering how much more suggestive my actions have to be before my imagining does become part of the Shared imagined space?

The is the argument of the beard from philosophy (how many hairs does it take to be called a beard) but can explore the boundries of this idea. Information becomes public when it is communicated - but communications does not have to be direct.

One thing I like to put in games are bits of information that suggest something is happening. I've done no prep work for their to be anything there. I'm letting the suggestion lead players to fill in the rest of the picture in their minds (the matrix of Matrix Games). Players start looking for possibilities rather than figuring the odds.

Universalis is all about this flip in game direction.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

[Valamir]

Surely all of the individual hints and cues that are openly communicated during play are part of the SIS.  But as long as there are multiple possibilities for what those cues mean...the end result is not (yet).  

Your pouring holy water on Fred's character is part of the SIS.  But it could mean anything from "you think Fred's a vampire" to "you're an annoying little git".

[pete_darby]

So are we looping back to Tony's work on meaning here?

The facts of behaviour in the SiS are there, but the meaning hasn't yet been determined. On a sheet, in someone's mind, to me it doesn't matter until it's in the SiS.

And, of course, the meaning has to accord with everyone's vision of the SiS, bearing in mind the behaviour.

[Mike Holmes]

I think that this is clearly part of Fred's Individual Imaginary Space but until it goes through the standard offer and acceptance proceedure of System it can't be considered part of the SIS.

In fact, No Myth would seem to confirm this.

Well, yes, this is the "No Myth" POV. But in putting out No Myth, Fang pointed out that it was just a way of looking at things.

This seems all very political to me. The people who want to point out the No Myth POV want to have the dichotomy between the personal and shared spaces. But Lumpley doesn't include that, you've just tacked it on after the fact.

Another equally valid reading of the Lumpley Principle is that the "sharing" that's going on is merely the means by which we determine that things are credible. If you agree that the GM, for instance, can create and call things that he has not revealed "real" because he can reveal them at any time, then that's giving the GM credibility to create things in his own "individual space" that can be transfered to the "shared space" whenever it seems reasonable to do so. The credibility check at this point is not whether or not these things existed a priori, but whether their appearance is acceptable at the moment that it happens.

Is there really any difference in how these things occur? Well, only cognatively. So we have to look at it that way. One player sees it as No Myth, and another sees the RPG world as having some amount of previous unknown existence.

This is actually very important. To simply say that it's unimportant whether or not something was decided on before it was shared with the players is to state that whole styles of play are dysfunctional. Basically the politics that get injected here amount to asking the question, "Why do you delude yourself about the pre-existence of things when it's so unneccessary." The answer to which is that the player in question does find it neccessary to enjoyment.

So we can go around in circles all day saying that one POV is correct and the other is not. But at the end of the day we're each all talking about the POV that explains our own preferences. Which is pointless. It's not the "Imagined Space" that's important. It's merely who we give credibility to and why. That's what varys from system to system.

Mike

[Valamir]

I hear what you're saying, Mike.  But I don't agree that No Myth is just one point of view vs. other equally valid points of view.  No Myth is the universal reality.  The other points of view are additional layers / screens / filters tacked on top to hide that reality from the players.

Basically the politics that get injected here amount to asking the question, "Why do you delude yourself about the pre-existence of things when it's so unneccessary." The answer to which is that the player in questio does find it neccessary to enjoyment.

Those statements are not mutual exclusive.  In fact, I'd say that tney are both true.

The appearance of a preexisting world is BOTH necessary to those player's enjoyment (or at least they currently believe it to be) AND it is intentional self delusion.

The proof that it is self delusion is easy to see.  Take any game where the players are convinced the GM's world is 100% pre existing (or at least as close as possible to that ideal).  Then have the GM just start making stuff up, playing All Roads, and using other Illusionary tactics.

The player's enjoyment of the game will not be effected 1 bit...at all...UNLESS they catch him doing it.

It clear that its not the act of No Myth that bothers those players.  What bothers them is when they can no longer delude themselves about whether No Myth is being used.

That desired and sought after delusion doesn't change the universal fact that NOTHING actually exists in the game until it enters the SIS.  Now a GM determined not to use No Myth may well voluntarily police himself from adding anything to the SIS that he hadn't created previously...but that's just the added layer of filter and screening that I mentioned above.  It doesn't mean the No Myth principle has ceased to function.

[John Kim]

Well, first of all, I think agree with you definitionally, Ralph.  I've always considered that the Shared Imaginary Space consists only of those things which are known to all the participants.  i.e. The Shared Imaginary Space is an abstraction which is the intersection of everyone's Individual Imaginary Spaces (IIS).

Thus, I would say that by definition something which is secret between two players, one player, or anything less than the full group is (by my understanding) not part of the Shared Imaginary Space.  On the other hand, you seem to attach an overwhelming importance to the SIS -- which is why Mike calls it political.  To my mind, the SIS is an abstraction, while it is the Individual Imaginary Spaces that really matter.  To each person, how they imagine what is going on is by definition what is important.  

It clear that its not the act of No Myth that bothers those players.  What bothers them is when they can no longer delude themselves about whether No Myth is being used.

That desired and sought after delusion doesn't change the universal fact that NOTHING actually exists in the game until it enters the SIS.  Now a GM determined not to use No Myth may well voluntarily police himself from adding anything to the SIS that he hadn't created previously...but that's just the added layer of filter and screening that I mentioned above.  It doesn't mean the No Myth principle has ceased to function.

I should probably have a standard rant on this.  The fact is that nothing actually exists in the game, period.  You can delude yourself that things which are in the SIS are "real", but they're not.  The fact is that you can go ahead and change any of them.  

I would say that some degree of delusion is essential to the point of the fiction.  You have to buy in and care about things which aren't real.

[Mike Holmes]

What John said.

Before No Myth, we knew that it was all fictional. What No Myth said is that for some players it's fine to acknowledge that there's no "GM pre-existence" instead of trying to maintain that particular illusion. Fang presented it as a style of play, not so as to point out some underlying truth about RPG play. See, for instance: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=6275

Mike

[Valamir]

Well, first of all, I think agree with you definitionally, Ralph.  I've always considered that the Shared Imaginary Space consists only of those things which are known to all the participants.  i.e. The Shared Imaginary Space is an abstraction which is the intersection of everyone's Individual Imaginary Spaces (IIS).

Thus, I would say that by definition something which is secret between two players, one player, or anything less than the full group is (by my understanding) not part of the Shared Imaginary Space.  On the other hand, you seem to attach an overwhelming importance to the SIS -- which is why Mike calls it political.  To my mind, the SIS is an abstraction, while it is the Individual Imaginary Spaces that really matter.  To each person, how they imagine what is going on is by definition what is important.  

I think we're in 100% agreement on this John -- mark the day on the calendar ;-)

I completely agree that what matters to an individual's enjoyment is how they perceive their Individual Imaginary Space.  That's why I can say:

"It clear that its not the act of No Myth that bothers those players. What bothers them is when they can no longer delude themselves about whether No Myth is being used. "

I can say this because even if No Myth is going on in the SIS, if they can't perceive that it is going on then their IIS is uneffected by the No Myth and thus their individual enjoyment is not impuned.  Its only when awareness of No Myth techniques creeps from the SIS into the IIS that it become problematic.  The IIS is absolutely where an individual's source of satisfaction comes from.

BUT, the reason I attach even greater importance to the SIS is because it is at the level of the SIS that system happens.  The functioning of the SIS effects everybody because it is both receiving from and transmitting to the IIS's.  Trouble at the SIS level is a fast train to dysfunction, and so therefor I think it is essential to prioritize the SIS over the IISes.  Prioritizing the IIS over the SIS is pretty much (to my mind) definitional of selfish play.

But note that prioritizing the SIS is not the same thing as excluding the IIS.  Both are critical to successful game play.

It clear that its not the act of No Myth that bothers those players.  What bothers them is when they can no longer delude themselves about whether No Myth is being used.

That desired and sought after delusion doesn't change the universal fact that NOTHING actually exists in the game until it enters the SIS.  Now a GM determined not to use No Myth may well voluntarily police himself from adding anything to the SIS that he hadn't created previously...but that's just the added layer of filter and screening that I mentioned above.  It doesn't mean the No Myth principle has ceased to function.

I should probably have a standard rant on this.  The fact is that nothing actually exists in the game, period.  You can delude yourself that things which are in the SIS are "real", but they're not.  The fact is that you can go ahead and change any of them.  

I would say that some degree of delusion is essential to the point of the fiction.  You have to buy in and care about things which aren't real.

Clearly nothing is "real".  That's why its called IMAGINARY space.  Everything about the game world is fiction.  But there are still identifiable "facts" about the game world.  Those are "fictional facts" in the sense that they don't have an independent existance out side of the imaginary space of the game...but within that space they define the reality of the game.

If the fictional fact exists only in a single player's IIS, then it is extremely easy to change.  That single player can do it without consulting anyone else but himself and typically without anyone else being aware that anything changed.

The more IISes that fictional fact exists in, however, the harder it is to change.  In order to really BE changed in a non dysfunctional manner it has to be changed in each player's IIS who was aware of it.

By definition, the SIS is the area of overlap of all of these IISes, so once a fictional fact enters the SIS it, by definition, is automatically a part of all IISes.

Being more difficult to change lends a degree of permanence to the fictional fact.  The highest level of permanence a fictional fact can have is when it is present in ALL players' IIS...i.e. it is part of the SIS.

It is that level of permanence that I refer to when I say something "exists in the game".  Of course it is still subject to change.  But not nearly as easily as when it is only part of the IIS of one player (such as the game master).

[Mike Holmes]

The highest level of permanence a fictional fact can have is when it is present in ALL players' IIS...i.e. it is part of the SIS.

That's subjective, and depends on how credibility is apportioned. In most games, the GM can alter what's in the SIS at will, for instance (for example, correcting a continuity error). There may be far more "permenance" to what he has in his IIS than to any particular thing entered into the SIS in certain groups. That is, the agreement might be that anything in his notes is "fictional fact." Maps can be said to be inviolable by agreement. Yes you don't have to do any of these things, but doing so is no different than any other sort of apportionment of credibility.

Mike

[John Kim]

BUT, the reason I attach even greater importance to the SIS is because it is at the level of the SIS that system happens.  The functioning of the SIS effects everybody because it is both receiving from and transmitting to the IIS's.  Trouble at the SIS level is a fast train to dysfunction, and so therefor I think it is essential to prioritize the SIS over the IISes.  Prioritizing the IIS over the SIS is pretty much (to my mind) definitional of selfish play.

OK, now we're back into disagreement.  The SIS can't transmit or receive anything.  It's just an abstraction.  I think you're talking more about social actions -- what Victor Gijsbers addressed in his thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14893">Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text.  Just to be clear: Imaginary Space is what's in your head.  Text is what you actually say.  

Stuff can be communicated between people without entering the SIS -- for example, by note passing in a tabletop game or by basically any action in a large-area LARP.  Being an abstraction, the SIS is fairly volatile.  For example, let's say a new person joins the game.  He gets some basic introductions to the situation and is then accepted.  Suddenly a whole bunch of things which were in the SIS now are not, because the new player doesn't know them.  

The fact is that nothing actually exists in the game, period.  You can delude yourself that things which are in the SIS are "real", but they're not.  The fact is that you can go ahead and change any of them.  

I would say that some degree of delusion is essential to the point of the fiction.  You have to buy in and care about things which aren't real.

Clearly nothing is "real".  That's why its called IMAGINARY space.  Everything about the game world is fiction.  But there are still identifiable "facts" about the game world.  Those are "fictional facts" in the sense that they don't have an independent existance out side of the imaginary space of the game...but within that space they define the reality of the game.

If the fictional fact exists only in a single player's IIS, then it is extremely easy to change.  That single player can do it without consulting anyone else but himself and typically without anyone else being aware that anything changed.

The more IISes that fictional fact exists in, however, the harder it is to change.

How easy something is to change depends on the system and contract.  Particularly in a tabletop game, it is always trivial to declare a change.  For example, I could say "Actually, this world has three moons."  The difficulty comes from whether people accept this, not from the difficulty of my moving my lips.  

The ease of change depends on what we think of as real, not the other way around.