At the roots of roleplaying

[rgrassi]

Before replying to single questions I'd like to better clarify my point using images instead of words. If it's a problem, please remove this post and I'll "switch to words". If anyone thinks that my point is clear I'll go into further details with next posts. Otherwise please make questions in order to avoid any misunderstanding.







Rob

[rgrassi]

Sorry for the previous post. Images need resizing. And the last one references a file called "overview.PNG" instead of "overall.PNG".
Rob

[Ron Edwards]

For purposes of discussion, I am waiving the usual Forge rules about imagery. This seems to me to be one of the rare cases in which images are constructive.

Best, Ron

[Caldis]

I think what your missing is that the personal imagine space comes from the shared imagine space.  

Say we as a group have decided to play a role playing game.  A bunch of us sit around and discuss what we'd like to play, let's say we settle on Dogs in the Vineyard.  We then decide that someone will run the game and everyone else will run characters. The GM prepares a town the players create characters.  They then start to play proper relating events and actions and determining outcomes.

This whole process is a sequence of sharing ideas.  Every point builds on ideas that have come before, they are not springing full formed from one individual.  Even the simple act of choosing the game and discussion around it has informed the players about the game and shared imaginary things.

The only point I see in discussing any personal imaginary space is to note difficulties in communicating ideas, where what you take from what has been shared or what you try to input into the game isnt shared properly.  I would simply call them communication issues though rather than muddying the waters with more jargon.

[rgrassi]

Hi,

I think what your missing is that the personal imagine space comes from the shared imagine space.

It's in the step 4.
More, at the beginning of the game, if SIS is blank, personal imagined space does not come from the share (which is blank) and must be filled.
Rob

[Moreno R.]

Roberto, what is the difference between the Personal Imagined State, and a person's imagination? Why the need for another jargon term?

Where is situated the unvalidated imagined space? How could I, at first sight, recognize an item from the unvalidated imagined space from one in the shared IS? 

I don't think there are two "spaces" at all. Something is shared or not, period. The validation process don't "unshare" what was said. It simply mark it (previonally) as "true / not true" (or even "maybe true"). Think about a game about a investigation. "this  character is the killer" could go from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" again all the time.  It's not a one-way step as you draw here.
Some of these impur don't pass for a validation process at all: for example, when someone win narration rights in a conflict, under certain limits what he will say is validated before being imagined.

[Callan S.]

Roberto, what is the difference between the Personal Imagined State, and a person's imagination? Why the need for another jargon term?

I think Rob is trying to distinguish three seperate acts of imagining, rather than letting them all get clumped in together under a 'persons imagination' and that obscuring the details of what process is at work.

Where is situated the unvalidated imagined space? How could I, at first sight, recognize an item from the unvalidated imagined space from one in the shared IS?

That's a tricky question, Moreno. Have you ever proposed something that could be in the SIS, but your prepared to have it not accepted? Like say your PC swinging across the room on a rope - but your say it with it in mind that somehow it might not fit and might not end up being used? Or do you normally either say something and it goes straight to the SIS or not say anything at all? Ie, once you imagine it, you just say your swinging across the room? I'm thinking the diagram might not make sense because some people might be used to speaking directly into the SIS straight from the personal imagined state, with no validation phase.

I don't think there are two "spaces" at all. Something is shared or not, period. The validation process don't "unshare" what was said. It simply mark it (previonally) as "true / not true" (or even "maybe true"). Think about a game about a investigation. "this  character is the killer" could go from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" again all the time.  It's not a one-way step as you draw here.

I think going from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" would be multiple cycles of the diagram. The diagrams just covers one use of the process, they don't represent multiple uses layered on each other. Rob, am I correct on that assumption?

Some of these impur don't pass for a validation process at all: for example, when someone win narration rights in a conflict, under certain limits what he will say is validated before being imagined.

Well, other people would be checking/validating that your sticking to those limits. It's probably such a smooth validation phase that way that it's almost imperceptable.

[rgrassi]

Some reply...

Where is situated the unvalidated imagined space?

In the same dimension of the Shared Space. Unvalidated Imagined Space handles all possible states of SIS that are negotiated because of the event to be validated.

How could I, at first sight, recognize an item from the unvalidated imagined space from one in the shared IS? 

Before the System it's in the unvalidated space.
After the System it's in the shared space.

The validation process don't "unshare" what was said.

It's not what I'm saying.
The validation process is used to "share and agree" what has been submitted by the player(s).

Think about a game about a investigation. "this  character is the killer" could go from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" again all the time.  It's not a one-way step as you draw here.

I think going from "probably untrue" to "probably true" to "probably untrue" would be multiple cycles of the diagram. The diagrams just covers one use of the process, they don't represent multiple uses layered on each other. Rob, am I correct on that assumption?

You're right. This process may be (in some case is) cycled far all the events that are proposed to be in the SIS.

Some of these impur don't pass for a validation process at all: for example, when someone win narration rights in a conflict, under certain limits what he will say is validated before being imagined.

That's kinda weird...
Maybe you're saying that in some case the validation process is skipped (and the Unvalidated Imagined Space also). That's true. There are some cases in which what is said goes directly into the SIS.
I'll provide details about this in next posts. Mostly, when the player 'wins' authorship what he says goes directly from the Personal Space to the Shared Space.
A type of games where this occurs are the parlour games (as said before). These are narration games with an high risk of incoherency (not in the sense of the model).
Rob

[rgrassi]

If any of you is still interested I'm redrawing the images to make them more clear.
Then I'll talk about each single step in detail.
Rob

[contracycle]

Here's my thing.  The shared imagined space is a "real" imagined space.  It has content, texture, motion.  There is a street, here is an character, over there is a prop.  There is Stuff in the SIS.  I can, and do, imagine the SIS as a real space - in my minds eye, I can look down its length, see people moving within it, look up at the sky or down at the ground.  And there is something there, either something mandated by the act of sharing, or a detail I have added or extrapolated myself.  I have memories of imagined spaces I have played in, in exactly the same way that I have memories of imagined spaces invoked by a book I have read.

In your "unvalidated" space, there is no stuff.  There is merely the proposition of stuff.  It does not have content in the same way the SIS does.  The unvalidated space contains the maybes, the might-have-beens, the possibly-could-be's.  There is nothing really there.  I cannot really imagine this unvalidated space - it has no coherency, it is not realised, it is not really an imagined space at all.

As a category, a bucket, a step that describes the procedure by which the SIS is modified?  Sure, I can acknowledge your proposition in those terms.  But it does not seem to be a real imagined space.  I don't understand what is to be gained by attaching this label to what is essentially the process of negotiation. 

[rgrassi]

I see your point contracycle. Anyway, I think that it's the field over which System works. And it's the space delegated to check for any 'unconsistency' that may break the SIS.
Rob

[rgrassi]

So far so good. Here's the update of the steps. Hope that Ron will waive again the "No images policy." There should not be changes to images. I'm proposing new images in order to preserve the old as an archive.












Some reply:

"The shared imagined space is a "real" imagined space. It has content, texture, motion.There is a street, here is an character, over there is a prop.  There is Stuff in the SIS.  I can, and do, imagine the SIS as a real space - in my minds eye, I can look down its length, see people moving within it, look up at the sky or down at the ground."

Right, but that's your personal view of the SIS.
A "shared imagined space" in physical terms does not really exist.
The only thing that exists are "images" in your personal imagination coming from your interpretation of what has been agreed by the system.
Two players, most probably, will provide different description and representation of a SIS.

In your "unvalidated" space, there is no stuff.  There is merely the proposition of stuff.  It does not have content in the same way the SIS does.  The unvalidated space contains the maybes, the might-have-beens, the possibly-could-be's.

And are not the "maybes, might-have-been, possibly-could-be" the real reason why players are around the tables and play an rpg? As for the content, it is "filled and emptied out" periodically, like the air in an accordion.

As for the 'observable' things.
Step 2 and Step 3, are observable.
Step 1 and Step 4, are not.

From these steps we derive that:
1) Personal Imagined Space (or Personal Imagination, as wisely suggested by Moreno), as the personal view of the SIS, is by far the most 'tangible', even if subjective, things we've to deal with.
2) Unvalidated Space (and not SIS) may be the 'logical object' to handle the concepts in the definition of System.

My two cents...
Bye,
Rob

[edited by V.Baker to correct image links, at request]

[Adam Dray]

This all makes pretty good sense to me. To me, though, it's just new words for IIEE.

Also, I disagree that System first gets involved in moving an idea from Unvalidated to Shared. There is System involved in moving an idea from Personal to Unvalidated. There could be rules, but there are at least social norms (part of System), that govern how and when people communicate their ideas ("My character wants to break the door").

For example, the game Puppetland requires that players speak in the first person ("I break the door"). Since saying it isn't necessarily validation by the group (movement to the SIS), you must grant that System was involved in saying "I break the door."

I will grant, however, that validation can't happen until an idea is communicated. There is no way (short of physically restraining them) to stop someone from adding to the Unvalidated Imagined Space. "Bob breaks the door" would be an invalid contribution to the SIS and to the UIS, so it would be invalid based on System applied retroactively to the movement from Personal to Unvalidated.

[rgrassi]

This all makes pretty good sense to me. To me, though, it's just new words for IIEE.

Not so sure, since, if i understand correctly IIEE applies to characters and not to people.
In that sense, IIEE is inside the UIS.

Also, I disagree that System first gets involved in moving an idea from Unvalidated to Shared.

There's maybe to correct the image in #3. The box is not intended to overlap on PIS. What I think is that System works only in #3 and only on UIS.
Thanks for the constructive reply, hovewer.
Cheers,
Rob

[rgrassi]

Sorry Adam, my fault... Looks like you're right with respect IIEE...
From Provisional Glossary v2 [excerpt]
"how actions and events in the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of (1) real-world announcement and (2) imaginary order of occurrence".

Rob