Character, Sheet, and Play Revisited

[Valamir]

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

I don't in the least bit agree with any of that.  And I also don't agree that it has anything at all to do with play style or preference.

Sure you could say that anything on a map is permanent...when?
The first time the GM scriggles some lines on a piece of scrap paper it become inviolate?  The first time he makes a neat final copy on hex paper...THEN it becomes inviolate.

Baloney.  At any time the GM could (if he chose to do so) take said inviolate map back home after a game session, erase a few lines, make a few changes, and voila...new map.  How is that "more permanent"?  It isn't.  Any semblance that it is...any agreement that it should be is pure unadulterated illusion.

In a group where players have agreed that maps are permanent, when does it become permanent?  The first time its shown to the other players and they can see for themselves where everything is.  MAYBE the map is found in a source book which has been agreed to in advance and was part of the pregame info dump into the SIS that comes from agreeing to play a certain setting.  Or maybe its a GM's own creation that doesn't truly get finalized until the other players have seen it.


Until then all of the rest...all of the agreement to not change things around secretly, all of the GM is empowered to change things unilaterally if he wants...all of that type stuff is just additional layers and filters ON TOP of the default situation.  Default being No Myth.

I really don't see why or how you could even disagree with that.  This has been basic bog standard stuff for as long as Illusionist GM tactics have been around.  The only thing the SIS, IIS distinction does is map that already known phenomenon with enough precision that it can be talked about and analysed.  And I know you already know this because you post about illusionist tactics all the time.

[Valamir]

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 Shared Imagined Space, Shared Text.  Just to be clear: Imaginary Space is what's in your head.  Text is what you actually say.  

Now you're just being pedantic.  If the IIS of every individual player is drawn as a Venn circle the place where they overlap is the SIS.  

As players are informed by what is happening in their own IIS and take action accordingly those actions manifest in the SIS.  As they manifest in the SIS and are accepted by the other players the get incorporated into the other players' IIS.

Essentially information has started in my IIS, been received into the SIS, and then transmitted into your SIS.  The SIS functions in a role akin to a server in an MMORPG while the IIS is each of the player's own terminals.  In computer terms Lag is what happens when things are going on in your IIS that isn't being transmitted to my IIS effectively.

The distinction between text and space doesn't really apply.  The only stuff that can exist solely in your own head is that part of the venn circle of IIS that doesn't overlap with the other players.  The part that overlaps with the other players...the SIS...is only reliable when its communicated through some form of action.  Whether its having seen the same movies, read the same source book, or been present at the same table when events were played out.  It can't get from one persons IIS into the SIS without being communicated in some fashion

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.  

That's a whole seperate topic worthy of a whole seperate discussion.  There are all kinds of interesting questions to answer there.  If the note gets passed all the way around the table at different times is it then part of the SIS?  Are there seperate smaller mini SISes between each potential grouping of IISes?  If so how large and persistant can those be relative to the main SIS before signs of dysfunction arise?  Does the SIS really go away simply because a new player joins and not return until the new player knows 100% of what the other players knew?  Or is the SIS exactly the same at it was and the new player just gradually overlaps his IIS with the others bit by bit.  If so what does that say about the necessity of having the SIS as currently understood be identified as shared universally among all the other players...does it change things, or is just a special case that's out side of the usual rule?

All those are fascinating.  None of them are really relevant to this thread, however.

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.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.  It may well be extremely trivial to declare a change at the table with a group of fellow players.  But now matter how trivial it is it is alway less trivial (i.e. more difficult) than changing something that those other players don't already know.

If the entire group thinks there are 2 moons, and I realize I made a mistake then no matter how easy it is to rectify the group to the fact that there are really three...it by definition is harder than if the other players had no idea how many moons there were to begin with and only I myself ever knew that my original notes were wrong.  

Catching such a mistake while it is still solely within my IIS and changing it before it becomes part of the SIS is ALWAYS easier than changing it after it enters the SIS...no matter how easy that may also be.  

I'm really struggling to see the source of some of this disagreement.  I'm hardly saying anything that isn't (or shouldn't be) pretty basic obvious stuff here.  Its like I'm saying "3 is greater than 2" and you keep insisting "yeah but they're both really small numbers"...so what...that doesn't change the fact that 3 is greater than 2.  No matter how easy it may be to make changes to the SIS its always greater than making changes to a single IIS.  There really isn't any room for disagreement there that I can see.

[Mike Holmes]

has been basic bog standard stuff for as long as Illusionist GM tactics have been around.

Again, you're talking about certain sorts of credibility apportionments. Are you honestly saying that never has there been an agreement between players and GM that there will be no alteration of things agreed to be fact in a manner such as saying that a map is inviolate? That all GMs will always change the map if it suits them and this is always allowed and expected by all groups? There are no CAs in which it would be a violation of the social contract, and highly dysfunctional for the GM to do such a thing?

Because there are groups like this, and you know there are. It's just your opinion that they're doing something unneccessary, "deluding" themselves. The question is whether or not they really want this, or, as the Beeg Horseshoe has claimed for years, whether or not this added layer exists to combat other dysfunction.

You are right that it takes more effort to communicate something to the SIS. But that has nothing to do with system. System is about credibility. So the only questions can be about how people do this.

Mike

[Valamir]

Again, you're talking about certain sorts of credibility apportionments. Are you honestly saying that never has there been an agreement between players and GM that there will be no alteration of things agreed to be fact in a manner such as saying that a map is inviolate? That all GMs will always change the map if it suits them and this is always allowed and expected by all groups? There are no CAs in which it would be a violation of the social contract, and highly dysfunctional for the GM to do such a thing?

Are you reading what I wrote?

Of COURSE there are agreements between players and GM athat there will be no alteration of blah blah blah.

I've SAID that SEVERAL times now.  Those things are add-on layers.  They are additional filters on top of the default.  The default is what things look like WITHOUT those extra agreements.

And that is, that ultimately, once you strip away all of the various additional trappings people put on it...the default...is No Myth.  No Myth...meaning nothing is considered to exist in game until it is introduced in play into the SIS through system...is the most fundamental unadulterated level of Table Top Role Playing.

Everything else...all of those other perfectly valid, perfectly enjoyable, personal preference styles of play are added layers and filters on top of this primal state.

Why is that important?  Because it relagates all of those styles to the level of personal preference.  They are not fundamental, definitional aspects of what Role Playing is, or should look like.  They are, in Uni terms, elaborate Rules Gimmicks added on because people want to change how things are done.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, let's assume that you're correct. What does it matter what's "default" or "fundamental?" Why bother discovering that. I think it's just a perspective, personally, but even if you're right...so what? What does that prove or get us. In the end we still have the Lumpley Principle telling us what system is. We still know that it's all fiction. What good is labeling one sort of fiction "default?" When, in fact, for most players what's "default" is all of those "extra" layers?

Mike

[John Kim]

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.  

That's a whole seperate topic worthy of a whole seperate discussion.  There are all kinds of interesting questions to answer there.  If the note gets passed all the way around the table at different times is it then part of the SIS?  Are there seperate smaller mini SISes between each potential grouping of IISes?  If so how large and persistant can those be relative to the main SIS before signs of dysfunction arise?  Does the SIS really go away simply because a new player joins and not return until the new player knows 100% of what the other players knew?  Or is the SIS exactly the same at it was and the new player just gradually overlaps his IIS with the others bit by bit.  If so what does that say about the necessity of having the SIS as currently understood be identified as shared universally among all the other players...does it change things, or is just a special case that's out side of the usual rule?

All those are fascinating.  None of them are really relevant to this thread, however.

Hold on.  I think we have a topic difference.  That seems exactly relevant to the topic as I understood it.  The question in my mind is, can something be part of the SIS if not everyone playing knows about it?  Let me go back to M.J.'s initial post:  

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.

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.

OK, so what we have here are different views of what the SIS is.  M.J. is asserting that something can be in the SIS without everyone knowing about it.  I think there are two different concepts here:

1) What is considered "true" within the fictional reality.  In other words, what has credibility to it.  The definition of this is how much resistance there is to changing a thing.  

2) What is commonly imagined among all the players -- i.e. the overlap between all the individual imagined spaces of the players.  

What is relevant here is when these two do not match up.  Thus I think the new player is a relevant situation.  By the definition of #2, adding a new player to the group will mean that anything she doesn't know isn't a part of the SIS anymore.  Here's another good example:  Secrets in Soap.  Are these part of the SIS?  That is particularly apropos of the "character sheets" part of the topic, I think.  

I suspect we should develop out separate terms for #1 and #2.

[C. Edwards]

Hey Mike,

For the same reason we break everything else concerning role-playing into component parts around here. It's what we do.

Stripping this down to the base layer provides an understanding of how the elements interact. You should then have a better idea of how to layer those Rules Gimmicks back over the base layer in order to create a certain play experience.

Anyway, not much else to say on my part except that I'm in 100% agreement with Ralph on this.

-Chris

[xenopulse]

What is relevant here is when these two do not match up. Thus I think the new player is a relevant situation. By the definition of #2, adding a new player to the group will mean that anything she doesn't know isn't a part of the SIS anymore.

Well, we all know the SIS is an analytical tool, not a real entity. It's a model that allows us to analyze certain processes among the players.

Obviously, there will always be people who share something that others do not. Some people don't pay attention, or forget things, so that not all of them share the exact same vision. My GM often takes people aside when the group gets split up, so there's always a disconnect there.

We could refer back to Ven diagrams to show all the combinations here of who shares how much with whom.

In old-school groups (like mine), it's the GM who connects everything. There's nothing that he doesn't know that counts. If we players talk while he's out of the room, it doesn't enter play. We have to run it through him. So there's a portal, if you will. A credibility portal into the official SIS. Do all players share all information? No. But it's part of the social contract that the GM is the center figure of the SIS, and everything needs to go through him.

I think that's an important aspect to keep in mind when we talk about what's officially in the SIS and what is not. The social contract often addresses this issue, and should address it. It's not always the same for every group.

[contracycle]

In old-school groups (like mine), it's the GM who connects everything. There's nothing that he doesn't know that counts. If we players talk while he's out of the room, it doesn't enter play. We have to run it through him. So there's a portal, if you will. A credibility portal into the official SIS. Do all players share all information? No. But it's part of the social contract that the GM is the center figure of the SIS, and everything needs to go through him.

Indeed, some time away someone from the Nordic school proposed the term "diagetic gateway" to describe this very phenomenon, which I also recognise.  At the time, this proposition fell on stony ground in favour of the GM-full perception of authority distribution.  However, I favour the diagetic gateway approach, and would say rather that it is possible for the group as a whole to act as this gateway.

[M. J. Young]

John is right; we clearly have distinct concepts of the Shared Imagined Space at work here.

There's a door in the room. Ralph's character is about to open it. I'm the referee. I know what's behind the door. Ralph is not certain. So Ralph listens at the door. I consider what it is he might hear, and he hears something--let's say he hears hoarse breathing. At this moment, it's clear that whatever is behind the door is breathing heavily and noisily. Still, I know what's behind the door, and Ralph does not. There's certainly a valid argument that "what's behind the door" is not yet part of the shared imagined space, but that "something breathing heavily" is.

It happens, though, that "what's behind the door" is Mike's character gasping for air, and Mike knows it, too. He hasn't said anything, because our play style requires a character to know something in order for the player to be told. So Mike and I know that Mike's character is behind the door that Ralph's character is about to open.

The quandary that this raises is, what is behind the door?[list=1][*]The only thing that is in the shared imagined space is "something that is breathing heavily", because until Ralph is let in on the secret, it's not true.[*]Mike's character is behind the door because Mike and I know he's there, even if Ralph has not yet discovered this; the fact that Mike knows he's there prevents me from changing it.[*]Even if Mike had not been in on the secret, once attention is focused on what's behind the door, whatever it is that I am imagining as being behind the door is now in the shared imagined space, even if Ralph never opens the door.[/list:o]
It's difficult, but let me offer this: I have been in many games in which we did not open that door. After the game, sometimes, someone has asked the referee what was behind the door. Always the referee had an answer to that question, and always we treated that answer as being "what was really there" in the shared imagined space.

That suggests to me that we all shared as accepted and credible that there was something behind that door the precise nature of which was known to only one player, but which was no less rearl within the shared imagined space because of that limitation.

Otherwise, the answer would have to have been, "there was nothing behind the door because you never opened it." Since that answer would have been totally dissatisfying and viewed as a cheat, it must be that we all knew there was something behind the door, and that the referee knew what it was, and therefore that's what it was.

There are things in the shared imagined space that are not shared in detail that are not less part of that space because of it.

At least, that's how I see it.

--M. J. Young