Setting and the SIS

[Eric Provost]

As part of my own personal Fantasy Heartbreaker, I've been working on formalizing collaborative setting creation.  I've had a few thoughts that I'd like to present here for discussion & debate.  I'm having a hard time nailing down exactly what I want to happen with a formal setting system and I think it might help if I get some theory straight in my head first.  

So, the following are the assumptions I'm starting with.  I'm open to any comment.

An element of setting is not part of the SIS until it enters play.

Old-standard is to include a list of setting elements as part of the Text and are incorporated into the SIS by way of the formal rules or by the GM and agreed upon by the players.  

e.x.;  If we're playing D&D and it's agreed that we will use the Forgotten Realms setting we have not yet incorporated the city of Westgate.  Not until the city of Westgate is incorporated into play, even though the city is plainly outlined in the book.

Some texts, especially modern Forge texts, include formal narration collaboration rules which allow players other than the GM to introduce elements of setting.  Some of these have formal rules for determining if the element is accepted or discarded.

Unfortunately, I'm only familiar with games like that from listening in on conversations.  I don't think I've yet played a game like that.

Crap.  Unfortunately I have to fly.  I'll add to this later.

-Eric

[Eric Provost]

Sorry about that.  I thought I was going to have plenty of time to work and I suddenly got called back to my plane.

Ok so... back to it.

I've begun thinking of setting elements on three different levels of scale.  First are the core elements, those bits that are essential to the game and are often included in hard-wired rules.  The Matrix is part of the setting of Shadowrun and is a core element.  You aren't likely to play shadowrun without being affected by it.

Secondly there is the known world, or the big picture.  Sticking with Shadowrun, in the known world we start with a dystopian future based upon real world politics, add in a sudden upheaval of magic, and a huge dose of technology, etc, etc.  The California Free State is part of the known world of Shadowrun.  It's written into the setting, but if it's forgotten about or re-written, there's no real change on the rules.

Finally, on the smallest scale, are the stage dressings.  The things that we see from scene to scene, like the office complex we're shooting up, the time of day, the weather at the moment, etc.  In complex texts about complex settings there are often suggestions for stage dressings, but those are so easy to ignore that... well... they often are.  Anyone out there read the ol' Seattle Sourcebook backwards and forwards?  The Big Rhino and Dante's Inferno were regular mission meeting places in every game we ever played.  But then, so was this one tenement block out in the Barrens.  That tenement block was right from our own creation.  As were and are most things that fall under stage dressings.

What I'm concerned about for FH8 are the second tier;  The Known World.  I want every campaign to start off with each player having ideas for elements that they want to incorporate.  Then I want the players to formally negotiate back and forth, eventually turning out a setting that no one expected (I think).

So, as I consider the question:  How do I formalize creating these elements of setting?  I realized;  I don't have a firm enough grasp on when those elements of setting REALLY  become part of the SIS.  Does anyone have any insight on this?  Maybe I need another perspective.  Maybe I just need someone who's got a solid grasp on all things theory to reassure me that I'm correct when I say that elements of setting don't enter the SIS, and therefore may as well not exist, untill they enter play.

And how would you describe the default system for how elements of setting are introduced and accepted into play?

-Eric

[Jasper]

"Enter play" and "in the SIS" are basically synonymous, so yeah. Something can't be "in play" without being in the SIS, nor in the SIS without being in play.  (Unless you have a more specific definition of "in play" like, "being interacted with in detail at this very moment".)

A default method for setting entering the SIS? I don't think there is or can be. Every instance is different. Still, in broad strokes you maybe have three main sources of setting: (1) published material, (2) notes prepared ahead of time, often by the GM alone, and (3) on-the-fly suggestions that get approved--usually silently when they're done by the GM and more vocally otherwise. Frex, "Shouldn't this tenement have a basement?" "Uh, yeah, sure."

Have you seen Universalis? That's all about negotation of elements entering the SIS, in a very transparent way. When you say "negotation," do you mean negotation to modify or disallow someone's ideas, or negotation over when an idea is brought to the forefront of play? Or both? In the first case, it seems like bidding might be a good way to go. In either case, some associated resource could gaurantee that no one gets their ideas defeated al the time.

[Eric Provost]

Naw, unfortunately, I haven't seen Universalis.  I really just need to invest some $$ in buying up all the buzzworthy games, if only just to read them.

When I mentioned negotiations, I meant both.  But... well, we might be on the same page, but your example of a basement in a building makes me wary.  See, I'd file that under the third scale of setting elements, where what I'm concerned with is the second.  Instead of negotiating if there was a basement in this building, I wanna be able to negotiate if people are in the habit of making basements at all.

-Eric

[Jasper]

Okay, but what's fundamentally different about that? Instead, "Let's go take control of the mountain-based cyber defense grid." "There's a mountain-based cyber defense grid? Hm...okay." But probably with some intervening diolog. But maybe not. The thing is, I'm not sure I can perceive the three-tiered layering of setting elements you've outlined if there isn't a written source to get them from. If they're all made up by the individual group (or at least levels 2 and 3 are) then nothing is going to be ignored any more or less -- there's nothing to ignore. Am I being clear?

[Eric Provost]

The difference that I see is the difference between 'Is there a mountain-based cyber-defense grid here?' and 'Is there any such thing as a cyber defense grid of any kind in this setting?  For that matter, is there any such thing as a mountain for it to based upon?'

If we agree to the first one, then we've agreed to the second one, but if we've agreed to the second one we haven't necessarily agreed to the first one.

-Eric

[Callan S.]

An element of setting is not part of the SIS until it enters play.

*snip*

e.x.;  If we're playing D&D and it's agreed that we will use the Forgotten Realms setting we have not yet incorporated the city of Westgate.  Not until the city of Westgate is incorporated into play, even though the city is plainly outlined in the book.

Just to spin you a bit, do you think something like that city enters play if someone casually says "And uh, yeah, all that stuff in the book is part of the world"?

Possibly one way of checking if something is in the SIS, is if it's actually used. The above statement doesn't mean much, until a player declares for example, that their PC is heading to Westgate.

[Justin A Hamilton]

So, in more brief terms - use general estimations of setting, but don't assume anything beyond that unless the players encounter something, or a player or GM mentions it?

So, if you are playing in a real life setting, don't assume that France is in Europe unless someone talks about France, or the players travel through France.  And if you happen to travel to where France would be, and it's actually Japan, this is what is true for terms of the game?

Or are you proposing more of a systematic way to go about this, and less assumed?

[Eric Provost]

An element of setting is not part of the SIS until it enters play.

*snip*

e.x.;  If we're playing D&D and it's agreed that we will use the Forgotten Realms setting we have not yet incorporated the city of Westgate.  Not until the city of Westgate is incorporated into play, even though the city is plainly outlined in the book.

Just to spin you a bit, do you think something like that city enters play if someone casually says "And uh, yeah, all that stuff in the book is part of the world"?

Possibly one way of checking if something is in the SIS, is if it's actually used. The above statement doesn't mean much, until a player declares for example, that their PC is heading to Westgate.

Nope, I don't think that casually accepting a text means that all the elements in the text have entered play.  We may agree that we're going to use the FR setting book.  It may be part of our agreement that, once we've accepted that book that it cannot be contradicted.  We've given permission to each other to bring elements of setting from the text into play, but haven't yet actually brought all the elements from that text into play.

I'm not 100% sure that just being 'used' enters an element of setting into the SIS.  In your example, where the player declares the PC headed for Westgate, it seems that all the player has done is declare their intention to incorporate the city into the SIS, without having actually done so yet.

I suppose I may have been a bit ambiguous with the phrase 'in play'.  I guess I was kinda thinking in sports terms when I said that.  A baseball may be approved for play by the officials, but untill it has an effect on the game being played it's not in play.  Or rather, when it is in play, it's having an effect on the game being played.  So, when an element of setting is approved by all the players, but has no effect on the game being played, that element is not in play.  So, like Jasper said, 'in play' = part of the SIS.

So, if you are playing in a real life setting, don't assume that France is in Europe unless someone talks about France, or the players travel through France. And if you happen to travel to where France would be, and it's actually Japan, this is what is true for terms of the game?

Or are you proposing more of a systematic way to go about this, and less assumed?

Well, sort of.  Like I was saying above, if we've all agreed that it's a real world setting, then we've agreed that France is in Europe.  But if our characters never go to France, and NPCs never come to France, and none of the characters ever talk about France, then France isn't part of the SIS.  

What I'm proposing is coming to understand exactly how elements of setting go from not existing at all, to being proposed, to being approved, to entering the SIS.  (If I'm not mistaken, then that would be the IIEE of setting, right?)  Then I want to use that understanding and formalize the system for how those elements are proposed, approved, and entered into the SIS.  I want to create a structure where the players not only have permission to create elements, but are guided to when and what elements they should create.  

-Eric

[Jasper]

Eric, I understand your distinction now, thanks for clarifying.

I disagree that a player saying "I'm heading to Westgate" hasn't entered Wetgate into the SIS -- presuming that no one immdiately raises an objection. Even though his character isn't actually at Westgate yet, interacting with it in some way, everyone at the table now knows Westage is there to be interacted with. It would be strange for someone to later say "Okay, you arrive at what you (the player) thought would be Westgate, but I've decided it's actally Toledo."

As for agreements about using a play-text, it seems like the difference is having ideas about the SIS and the SIS itself. And of course they're not the same.

For your system, how about giving each player two kinds of setting-manipulation points: one pool for entering things in at a general, 2nd tier level; and another for set-pieces. When someone proposes a change, he has to spend 1 point from the appropriate pool. But anyone can object by spending a point to counter him, and bidding ensues between those who want the change, and those who don't. Players can form temporary alliances and negotate with the player who proposed the change, saying something like "I don't like that, and I'm ready to bid 2 points against. But if you change it slightly, I'll throw 1 point toward it instead." After all is said and done, all the points that got "bid" are tossed out. This encourages players to propose things they think will be accepted, and not to challenge things unless they really don't like them. You could also have an inter-change between the two kinds of points, say at a 1:5 ratio.

[Eric Provost]

If the player declares that his character is heading to Westgate and then changes his mind before any story actually occurrs there, did Westgate ever enter the SIS?

Your suggestion for the setting-manipulation points is pretty similar to what I've currently got in mind.  Problem is, is that's adressing the negotiation aspect of incorporating setting elements, and what I'm currently struggling with is when an element should be proposed and what elements should be proposed to be negotiated, and how the system should prompt the players for that what and when.

For example, I could propose that there's an abandoned city a few miles north of where our characters are.  At what point is it appropriate and useful to make that proposition?  How should the formal system of my game prompt me to propose an abandoned city?  All this has to occurr before my fellow players agree with or object to the existance of the abandoned city.

I'd like to point out that despite the fact that I'm using lots of geography as examples, geography is just one type of element that I have in mind.  I also propose that cultures, histories, technologies, theologies, and every other aspect of the known world is open to be created in this system.  Just because we've already established a feudal China flavored setting so far dosen't mean that I can't propose a steam-powered, lightsabre-weilding, ninja-android that looks a lot like a mindflayer to be the ferryman that takes the a PC across the river.  

And, of course, when I propose that ferryman I'm hoping that the other players cheer for the existance of the ferryman, but then they might just tell me to belly up to the bar and get ready to show them how much I like all those new elements, cuz they don't plan to put up with it.

Should I be allowed to propose steam power, lightsabres, ninjas, and androids all in the same breath?  Should I be able to propose them mid-play, or should those elements be proposed at the beginning of a session?  Before any play begins at all?  At what point can the other players expect me to incorporate one of those elements?

That's what I'm working on right now.

[Jasper]

As I see it, it makes no difference if someone later changes his mind and doesn't want to go to Westgate. Because the instant he said "I'm goign to Westgate" everyone else then imagines a city called Westgate, and probably a few things about it -- it's in traveling distance, etc. At this moment, Westgate is vague and ill-defined, but it still exists in that form (in the SIS).

All this is assuming that Westgate actually means something to the players. Westgate's a published city in some source material somewhere?  Assuming that's the case, then merely mentioning it enters a lot about it into the SIS, even if vaguely or a bit tentatively. But if none of the players have heard of Westgate, and the player going there doesn't elaborate, then maybe it doesn't enter the SIS -- since it's just a word then, not a real idea. If the player at least says "the city of Westgate," that's enough.

[Marco]

Well, sort of.  Like I was saying above, if we've all agreed that it's a real world setting, then we've agreed that France is in Europe.  But if our characters never go to France, and NPCs never come to France, and none of the characters ever talk about France, then France isn't part of the SIS.  

I think this is a misuse of the term SIS.

1. There's no such thing as SIS--no one has telepathy--so what it's refering to is a theoretical overlap of various imaginings. As such, it's really hard to say what's in SIS and what isn't.

If the GM says "you see a rare cheese on the table" and then I stop the game and ask them, separately "what did you imagine as the cheese" and both picked a French cheese, then France did, in fact, enter the SIS even though it never was referenced in play (the player's two imaginings both contained the same or similar elements).

Treating SIS like it is something real is not a good idea for all discussions.

2. The elements you are dealing with here are more like the axioms on which to base assumptions--which, IMO are related to SIS, but different (what can a player reasonably *expect* to be on a mountain?).

In this case then everything in the setting book, whether it comes up in play or not effects the assumptions a player might make. It enters the 'assumption space' as soon as it's in the book and a participant in the game can reasonably assess that it's canon for a given game (i.e. that the GM has read the book, that the group is playing by the book, etc.)

-Marco

[Eric Provost]

Jasper,

I've spent a few hours pondering your post, and I'd like to know if you'd agree with the following;

If Westgate exists in the text, and everyone in the group has accepted the text as acceptable, but only one player has read the section on the City of Westgate, then when that player announces the intent to travel to Westgate the city becomes part of the SIS if and when the mention of the city has some effect on the role playing that follows.

If the mention of Westgate is met with a resounding negative response and the mentioning player immediately gives up the idea, has Westgate had any effect on play?  If so, what effect?

Marco,

I think we're in disagreement on the 'shared' part of the SIS.  You appear to be of the opinion that if everyone coincidentally imagines it at the same time then it's part of the SIS.  That would be one defination of 'shared'.  However, looking back to the glossary entry for SIS, I don't think that's what was intended.

Shared Imagined Space (SIS, Shared Imagination)
The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).

I threw a bit of bold around the part that struck me as important here; "through role-playing interactions".  If we accept this definition, then we have to interact with what we imagine for it to enter the SIS.  Then the 'shared' bit means that we have to share what we imagine with each other for it to enter the SIS.

So, if we go back to your cheese/France example, if one player says "rare cheese" and everyone imagines "French cheese" then France has still not yet entered the SIS.  On the other hand, if everyone if thinking "French cheese" then someone may respond to it ("Let's get that French bastard that left cheese on my table!") with the other players.  Once that happens then France has entered the SIS.

I stand by the statement that you quoted from me with one change.  I'm still in the habit of writing character when I mean player and vice versa.  So; If none of the players ever talk about France, then France isn't part of the SIS.

-Eric

[xenopulse]

I think we need to look at the utility of our definition here.

Marco is right in that there is no such thing as an SIS outside of our theoretical framework for analysis. It's a tool that allows us to look at certain phenomena and talk about them. Something's going on when people roleplay--they create some sort of story or sequence of fictionary events, and while that's shared in general, some details may well vary in the imagination and recollection of the players involved.

So instead of talking about which definition is right, it might just be useful to recognize the reasons that the definition is somewhat troublesome, and those reasons are obvious in the thread so far:

- Some concepts are shared by players explicitly. Someone says something, people agree, future contributions take it into account. That content is what we usually consider the SIS, for purposes of analysis.

- Some concepts are shared by assumption and implication, but they are not absolute. Someone gets shot in the heart in the fictional events, everyone assumes they're dead. It might be introduced later that they are a vampire, so the assumptions change. Therefore, until there has been agreement on the assumed fact, it might be shared, but it's still changeable.

- Some concepts are shared by reference and by agreement that the reference is reliable. The GM introduces a town. The social contract includes that printed materials are used without major changes. As soon as the town is introduced, material is shared insofar as people know it from their own reading. However, depending on the social contract, the reference is either an assumption that needs to be made credible, or an authority by virtue of prior agreement that people can use to support their credibility later.

Now, does it matter whether a fact is "in the SIS" for the purposes of this analysis? It matters whether a fact is explicitly agreed upon or not. It matters whether references have been given authority through the social contract. And it matters for play what kinds of assumptions players make, even when they are not explicitly validated yet.

Even previously established facts can be changed, if the group agrees to it. Therefore, what we're really dealing with here is a matter of the degree to which a fact has been authoritatively established among the group, from not introduced over assumed over tentatively adopted to fully established (and still revokable). We're analyzing how people play and what the outcome is, and while we surely yearn for something "absolute" to come out of it, it seems to me that we have a never final flux with a lot of hard overlap, some gray zones, some soft overlap of assumptions, and some individual assumptions.