Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Jonathan Walton, September 28, 2005, 03:32:10 PM
Quote from: JoshuaAlso consider a player that can't read maps, for instance; his mental construct of spatial relationships in the SIS will be different from the amatuer cartographer sitting next to him; the 'exact' relationships as described on the map will then not be common, and therefore won't be in the SIS.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 04, 2005, 05:02:29 PMBut here's the thing that gets me: as an expressly virtual space with no substantial existence, it's impossible to address the SIS with any procedures of play. There's nothing to latch on to that can be reliably assumed to exist as shared understanding. There is no way to reliably confirm that something is 'in' or 'out' of the shared understanding. We can mark off hit points on our character sheets -- that's concrete and can be referenced -- but we have no reliable method to determine and share what that means in the SIS -- is my guy scraped, bruised, bloody, dying, perfectly fine? I can decide that and you can decide that but we cannot decide the same thing together. In really technical terms, our signifiers and referents have only tenuous connections -- because the referents don't exist except in this virtual state in a virtual space.
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 04, 2005, 07:17:06 PM...have come to a satisfactory conclusion that the SIS is not a useful concept for designing games because the game can't interact with the SIS.
Quote from: C. Edwards on October 04, 2005, 05:45:46 PMHey Pekko,Good questions, thank you. Answering them will help me work through some of my relatively unformed ideas on the subject.
Quote from: C. Edwards on October 04, 2005, 05:45:46 PM1) Noise can be created by anything that promotes a disparity in the mental images provoked by a sign. Two people hear the word 'yellow' in the description of an automobile and each forms a mental image, one using a different shade of yellow than the other. Noise can come from having a different set of experiences and differences in individual communication techniques, but at base it stems from the fundamental differences in our personal meanings of a sign, of 'yellow'.The noise potential in the signal is there before we've even attempted to communicate. It's built in and ever present. The quality of our dialogue, who we are involved in the dialogue with, and the ideas that we are attempting to communicate will all have an effect on the actual message that the other person receives. So the more skilled we are at communicating with each other, and if we are in agreement on who has the credibility to override another individual's personal meaning of a sign with their own personal meaning, and if we have clear protocols to rely on should difficulties in communication arise, the more likely we are to be able to come to a similar and acceptable shared meaning of a sign (even if only temporarily).
Quote from: Joshua BishopRoby on October 04, 2005, 07:17:06 PMBack to Devil's Advocate: Lastly, individual imaginings are essential to roleplaying because that's where everything starts, and (when you get down to the nitty-gritty) that's where all the fictional details of the game reside. Instead of creating rules that attempt to refer to and affect the elelements in the SIS, we can create rules that refer to and affect our individual understandings of the fictional content. These imaginings are only inaccessible so long as they are uncommunicated; once they are communicated they are shared between the players' imaginations -- not in exactitude, but in ever-increasing parity through the action of the game. And that is, by my definition, what we call roleplaying.
Quote from: Alan on October 04, 2005, 08:16:21 PMYoicks! This is like saying that the rules of hockey don't interact with the puck.
Quote from: Silmenume on October 05, 2005, 02:55:57 AMHey there Joshua and Pekko!Without trying to sound like a weenie, but have either of your read Ritual Discourse in Role-Playing Games, Not Lectures on Theory [LONG!], On RPGs and Text [LONG], Bricolage APPLIED (finally!)? Many, many, many of the ideas you are wrestling with are covered in great depth in those links.
Quote from: Jonathan Walton on September 28, 2005, 03:32:10 PM1) Am I just completely off my rocker, here? Should I go with Ron's definition and assume that everyone else pretty much though SIS pretty much was Exploration?
Quote from: Jonathan Walton on September 28, 2005, 03:32:10 PM2)Have there been other attempts to define SIS that were more like what I'm describing or at least significantly different than Ron's definition? I poked around The Forge a little bit, but couldn't come up with anything that really caught the eye.