Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Jonathan Walton, September 28, 2005, 03:32:10 PM
6. Negotiated Narrative a. Common Imagination i. Implicit ii. Communicated b. Adjusted Imagination c. Unadjusted Imagination
Quote from: Jonathan Walton on October 01, 2005, 03:15:10 PMAnd a possible premise, at this point, is that the Anglo-American play idiom, coming from D&D, is mostly concerned with #1 there, packing in background knowledge and focusing on the stuff that gets communicated. White Wolf and a few other forces tried to expand the focus more towards #2 & #3, but I would say they were only somewhat successful and only for certain audiences. The Nordic larp idiom, on the other hand, is much more happy playing around with #2 & #3, with their focus on immersion and play experiences that are shared physically and socially, but where mental imaginings stay more private.
Quote from: Artanis on October 01, 2005, 06:50:27 AMWhile I agree that source material which has not been acknowledged (explicitely or tacitly) is not part of the SIS, that which has must be part of it.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 03, 2005, 02:59:36 PMIf SIS is assumed to be the imagined content that the players have in common, it's all insubstantial mental constructs. That the GM pulls out a picture or draws a map will inspire in the players mental constructs that closely resemble the map, but the physical map never enters into the SIS; it's just a representation of information that is (should) be in the SIS.
Quote from: Provisional GlossaryShared 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).
Quote from: Silmenume on October 01, 2005, 02:40:14 AMThe "Shared Imagined Space" is a "fact space." This is the arena of statements which have successfully negotiated their way through the Lumpley Principle. They were shared and agreed upon. That's it - that's all there is. I tend to think of it as filled with objects. These objects can have qualities like color or mood, but are things nonetheless.
Quote from: Valamir on July 29, 2004, 11:56:32 PMThe Shared Imaginary Space (SiS) is the arena in which role-playing takes place. It is the equivalent of the game board for play. The SiS is simply the sum total of all knowledge about the game, game world, in game events, characters, etc that has been introduced, presented to, and agreed upon by all of the players at the table.Unfortunately, barring mind melding abilities, the SiS can never truly be shared directly among the participants. Rather, each participant has their own Individual Imaginary Space where the game is taking place for them. The Shared Imaginary Space can then be seen as the theoretical construct which encompasses all of the elements that each Individual Imaginary Space has in common. Whatever elements that are the same across individuals is then part of the SiS.
Quote from: pekkok on October 03, 2005, 06:59:32 PMYet - to be a part of SiS, by similar criterion that you use, something would equally have to be shared - and someone's imaginary representation of the map cannot really be shared.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 03, 2005, 09:52:26 PMQuote from: pekkok on October 03, 2005, 06:59:32 PMYet - to be a part of SiS, by similar criterion that you use, something would equally have to be shared - and someone's imaginary representation of the map cannot really be shared.Replace 'map' with 'anything' and you have the reason why I abandoned the concept in my own understanding of roleplaying.
QuoteRalph also recognizes the problem of sharing imagination I noted earlier - but then defines SiS as "theoretical construct which encompasses all of the elements that each Individual Imaginary Space has in common" (note the preference of the word "imaginary" instead of "imagined"). But this is problematic because the possible common element is not the Individual Imaginary Spaces, but rather communication about them - and communication, in whatever form, is not the same as imagination.
Quote from: contracycle on October 04, 2005, 04:56:43 AMI'll illustrate by showing than Jonathans three aspects are matched perfectly by a multiple-access database.#1 is the stuff that we all share through prior info or active communication. Analogy: I make a change in the database, and this is reflected to all clients opening the dabatase. It is communicated - pushed - out to the client machines from the central node in order to ensure consistency.#2 Indicates clash about two people attempting simultaneous access to change something in the database. This cannot be allowed for consistency reasons; therefore the system priviliges one to make a change, and only one, at a time. Any implications of this change will come out in the use of or reference to this data.#3 Is similar to when you make a change in your local copy of the database, but when you attempt to replicate with the central copy, you encounter a warning or problem that your change is inconsistent with someone elses change. Again, this is a problem the database cannot solve and the users will have to negotiate as to which is correct.Hence the SIS, like a database, is always BOTH individual and shared. Control over the SIS is mediated BECUASE individual discrepancies necessarily exist in the "local copy". There is a constant interaction between the local copy and the central node, an interaction that is (mostly) governed by having the permission, AKA credibility, to make changes on the central node.
Quote from: contracycle on October 04, 2005, 04:56:43 AMNo, communication is not the same as imagination, but communication is absolutely critical to the formation of a SHARED imaginary space, and that is why it has such a prominent place in the definition. If it was not communicated, it might as well not exist... it DOES NOT exist in anyone elses imaginary space.
Quote from: pekkok on October 04, 2005, 09:45:36 AMBut by lumping shared and personal together (referring to them as database, and its local "copy"), this example relies on the assumption that there is some shared presence I can simply copy to my head, and what I copied then "is" my imagination. If I make changes to my copy of imagination, I can upload these changes back, and they become immediately visible in a sort of totality of shared imagination, downloadable for everyone to replace their imaginations, as is.
QuoteAs I wrote those words, I had an image of a car my head - can I "upload" this image to you using those words? Using more words? No, of course not. The image in my head includes surface patterns, shapes, the condition of wheels, a little bit of environment, weather and light conditions, etc.
QuoteI can of course try to say: "A yellow car that is a bit on the cheap side, in an environment that seems high-class - somehow this seems humorous, but also a bit mysterious since it does not seem that humorous." But what people understand and imagine, based on that expression, will vary wildly - even their sense of humour alone is probably quite different. So adding further words does not cure the problem.
QuoteNow, if these two very different levels, personal thoughts and interpersonal references (you could also call them signs, if you will), are lumped together under the same type, analytical problems will ensue, sooner or later. To me, they already seem fairly prevalent, given how differently people solve the problems of defining SiS.
Quote from: C. Edwards on October 04, 2005, 04:10:20 PMThere is an incredible amount going on 'behind the scenes' when we are imagining; bricolage, pattern recognition, extrapolation, references to our own internal logic and knowledge. Communication and game rules allow us to unify and integrate our separate imaginings. Translate imagining into a group oriented process as opposed to an individual process. There is always going to be some noise in the signal, but like Gareth says, 99% of the time that noise is going to have no noticeable effect on play. In those instances where it does, we continue the process of communication until an acceptable likeness of the message is delivered. When communication breaks down, when a game text gives a distorted or contradictory statement of how communication should proceed or credibility should be distributed, that's where the process of creating a shared imagined space encounters the most difficulty.