Term debate: "Instance of Play"

[Jack Spencer Jr]

One of the core concepts is instance of play since it is over and instance of play that GNS behaviors are observable. The problem is that it have a connotation to the uninitiated of a brief instance, such as a single event of dice roll or possibly as much as a single combat or the like. In actuality it might be an entire session or several sessions. Is there a better wording for this that might not have the connotations of brevity that instance of play has?

[C. Edwards]

Hmm, perhaps 'Period of Time' (PoT), or just 'Period' or 'Period of Play' (PoP).

Personally, while I think that the theory should be as accessible as possible I really don't think terminology changes will make much difference in the accessibility department. The word 'instance', for example, isn't exactly obscure or fraught with a dozen different meanings. It has two basic meanings, one involving something being 'urgent' or 'pressing' and the other being divorced from the concept of time and used as a 'case', 'occurence', or an 'example'. Many people are apparently substituting 'instant' for 'instance' and no amount of terminology change will prevent careless reading, poor reading comprehension, or synecdoche.

Okay, done ranting. I'll support any terminology change that seems laser focused compared to the current terminology but there just aren't many instances where that can happen. People are fond of seeing the meaning they want to see, even with disclaimers and statements to the contrary listed in the text.

-Chris

[Alan]

I think the quantum of actual play starts with a moment of decision and ends with the next one.    

Heinlein invented a quantum of fictional reality called a ficton.  To suggest a frivolous analogy: perhaps a quantum of decision is a decison ("deesyson"), choson, or opton.

Each player produces streams of chosons that collide over the gaming table and fuse into fictons.  Of course, not all chosons fuse.  Some spin off and degenerate into phantons.  A high rate of phantons cases player dissatisfaction.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

The problem with defining the quantum of player decisions is that the time can change so much. A session could easily be an "instance of play," as could a good scene, or even one decision.

In that, perhaps chosons are fractal in that every choson can be broken into smaller chosons.

[Mike Holmes]

Couldn't we just use "choice" for Choson? I mean, I'm a big fan of subatomic physics and whatnot, and the names sound fun. But what about a "choson" makes it different from a choice or decision?

Mike

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Too right, Mike. The point here is to make things easier, not harder to understand.

[Mike Holmes]

I could see defining choices better. That is we could identify the cognative steps involved. And also, there could be some supersets of choices that are still smaller than "Instances" that are also pertinent.

Mike

[Alan]

I originally proposed "choson" with tongue in cheek.

However, I can imagine one distinction between "choice" and "choson" that might be useful:

A choice is merely the decision made.

A choson includes the player's reasons, the decision and the narrative description that results, ready to be filtered through the group system to become a fact (ficton) within the game.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I have some comments about the length and content of an "instance" in the Ying in the yang? thread. Otherwise, I'm pretty spot on with Chris Edwards' comments in this thread - not much else to add.

Best,
Ron

[Jack Spencer Jr]

1) GNS preferences are tangibly identifiable. What they're not easily identifiable from is a single moment or action of play. My term "instance" refers in most cases to a set of moments/actions of play. In my experience, I'd call an "instance" to be close to an entire session, minimum. Particularly focused moments or actions could be an instance too, though I think that's getting too "atomic" in most cases. Other people have shorter or longer scales of perception they prefer to stick with.

So if I understand correctly, an instance can be a single moment/dice roll/ what have you or an entire session or even more than that. But, instances shorter than a session are probably too short or "atomic" to be helpful so it is better to default to the session length when observing and focusing on a single instance if it become important. Seems to me refering to a "play session" or just a session is more useful then, quantifying it if you mean "several sessions" and thus avoid confusion for whether we mean a single moment inside a session or years worth of weekly sessions.

Just my opinion, but I will point out that time and again the meaning of Instance of Play needs to be re-explained to people new to the theory who focus on a single moment, whether that are simply assuming that instacne means a single moment or they are confusing instance with instant or not.

[Alan]

I think confusion is happening between "Instance of play" and "instant of play" - an instance may be a section or example, but an instant has no time dimension, being a point in time.

Ron uses "Instance" where I might prefer "Unit" or "Example" jsut because "instance" can be confused with "instant."

My "choson" is more related to a single player's act of decision, so it is not the same as an "instance of play."