Shared Imagined Space and Imagination - Split

[Silmenume]

I broke this off from the Why we (I?) roleplay - especially in the Simulationist mode to deal with the topic of the Shared Imagined Space that had arisen.  I hope I have not over stepped my bounds by doing so.  The previous thread had gotten quite - tangled - and I hope this split will help to untangle it.

One cannot deny the use of the term Shared Imagined Space arguing that there is no spatial quality to "it" (by the claim there is no there there) and thus rendering the term "Space" inutile, but then use the term "in-game" which has a spatial quality without being self-contradictory.  Since the term Shared Imagined Space has been constructively used here at the Forge for over 2 years, and that the various descriptors used - "in-game," the "game space," or the SIS do seem to have an unavoidable spatial connotation, I see no good reason not to continue with its use.

I would also note that the Shared Imagined Space does have implied spatial qualities, as demonstrated in the idea of meta-game, which connotes something outside or beyond which implies boundaries, which implies space.  The countless arguments people have time and again about whether something said or done was in or out of character points towards some sort of implied spatial concept.  The social contract also works to "constrain" the SIS by defining (delimiting) what is inside; the setting, and the characters, and by defining what is outside; everything else – the metagame.

Regarding the role of imagination in roleplay, I believe it would be fruitful to start off with a definition first.

imagination - Traditionally, the mental capacity for experiencing, constructing, or manipulating 'mental imagery' (quasi-perceptual experience). Imagination is also regarded as responsible for fantasy, inventiveness, idiosyncrasy, and creative, original, and insightful thought in general, and, sometimes, for a much wider range of mental activities dealing with the non-actual, such as supposing, pretending, 'seeing as', thinking of possibilities, and even being mistaken
(Drawn from the Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind, Chris Eliasmith (Ed.))

Everything that happens to an individual must find its way into the imagination of that person (experienced) or it (that which happened) simply does not exist for that individual.  (This is strikingly manifested in those who have lost the ability to make long-term memories.)  This need for happenings to make their way into the imagination, via perception, to be experienced also includes created facts like the ones constructed during game play.  From these perceptions a reality is created (experiences) which is imbued with meaning – all of which happens in the imagination.  The importance of this process cannot be overstressed.  Remember, the senses deal with photons of various energies (sight), chemicals (taste and smell), atmospheric vibrations (hearing), and pressure and heat (touch).  There is no inherent meaning to any of these items, it is only what the mind, what the imagination assigns to them that determines their relevance/meaning.  Not only do we see a shape as a car (meaning), but that car is ours (meaning), and it being stolen (meaning)!  Because of this, there is no way to determine if 2 or more people experience photons of a frequency that is agreed to be red the same way.

All this means that meaning is an entirely internal process and that all external processes are merely a means employed in an attempt to convey meaning.  However meaning (experience) cannot be conveyed directly, but rather we attempt to encode the meaning using symbols/constructs (words – which we hope will evoke a similar meaning in the recipient) which are then encoded onto a carrier (spoken) creating vibrations in the air.  If you don't believe there is no inherent meaning to words (which are human constructs) try to discuss red or blue with someone who is colorblind.  They have no personal experience to draw upon with which to match the world blue or red with; therefore the words have no meaning.  You cannot experience or operate on words and numbers and pictures and communications without the imagination.  Words and numbers and pictures and communications are all tools employed in an attempt to move information around, but that information means nothing until it hits the imagination.  Words and numbers and pictures cannot mediate – they are at best symbols – only in the imagination can mediation be operated upon, and mediation concluded.  Once words have left the lips as formulaic acoustical vibrations they are lifeless and meaningless until sensed, perceived, given meaning, weighed and operated on in the imagination.  If we perceive that all others involved appear to be expressing agreement (through various means of coded communications – nods, spoken words, silent assent, waving of hands, written words, etc.) with an idea then we can convince ourselves that mediation has come to a conclusion and that agreement has been arrived at.  The mediation does not happen in the void, but in the heads of all those involved.

How is all this information then kept straight in the imagination?  By compartmentalizing the information into useful groups.  The mental process known at Theory of Mind best demonstrates this.  Theory of Mind states that not only is an individual aware of their own mental states (such as desires, intentions, imagination, emotions, etc.), but that there are others who also have such mental states which are independent of that individual.  Implied in this is that a person understands there is a limit to their own mental states which are separate from others.  In other words a person realizes that their states of mind are bounded because other people have their own independent states of mind.  This boundary is a spatial quality, thus it becomes fruitful to discuss such matters as spaces.  So within a person's imagination it is possible to have a "personal space" where an individual's mental processes are delimited, recognized, and operated on which is separate from other spaces such as another's perceived mental states which is separate from the concept of a "shared imagined space" (or an alternate fictional reality) and all the information which is pertinent therein.  All these "areas" must be kept separate or their identities will get lost, including that of the individual.  The inability to keep these spaces separate is a sign of mental dysfunction.

Yes, there is no there there, but there is, and must be, a there here (and in each and every player as well.)  The fact that the Lumpididdly Principiddly is so central to roleplay only serves to underscore this fact.  There is no objective reality to roleplay (otherwise events put into play would just work themselves out and all we would have to do is observe the results), there is only the subjective, so great pains must be made to make sure everyone is operating on this same artificial/constructed reality which resides in the imagination of every player at the table.  The LP functions like a judge at trial determining which facts are to be allowed into the Shared Imagined Spaces in the imaginations of all the players and which aren't.

There are many relationships and levels of information in the Imagination of an individual during a game.  There is the constructed "objective reality" (SIS) of all facts created during the game.  Then there is the "subjective reality" of the character that contains fewer facts than the constructed objective reality, but then has "constructed" feelings, desires, intentions etc. which may not have been fed into the SIS and are not one and the same as the player's (unless they are playing pawn stance), but drive the actions of the character.  There is also the Personal Imagined Space (that part of the imagination devoted to the self) and the Theory of Mind of the individual, which governs all aspects of the mind.  It is here, in the desires that the creation of the desire to play born and that the urges of the creative agenda take shape.  It is in the imagination that these desires are operated on and transformed into plans that will, in the fullness of time, hopefully succeed in satisfying desire.

A person can play all night, have hundreds of statements navigate their way to consensus and still have a terrible game.  How can this be if the point of roleplay is to create facts (have statements become consensus)?  Because the point of roleplay is not to create facts, but to satisfy the desires of the players.  If those desires are not met, it does not matter how much system was employed (LP).  If the created facts do not create any meaning, or do not create a satisfying meaning in the player, then there was no point to playing.  Roleplay is a meaning creation process, not a fact creation process.  The Creative Agenda in the model bears this out.  System is a tool used in an attempt to create conditions that satisfy desire.  The mere use of the tool however does not guarantee satisfaction, as the tool itself is oblivious for what means to which it is employed – it is blind to desire or the satisfaction thereof.  It is up to the players to determine how the tool is to be employed, thus hopefully attaining satisfaction.  If the point of the game is then not just the fact creation process (which is a means but not an end), but to satisfy the players (the true end of the means employed), then system falls to a secondary but still vital position.  You can't have roleplay without system (tools), but system is not the reason we (meaning of) roleplay.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Jack Spencer Jr]

I don't quite see what you're getting at. Was there a question or point up for debate? I don't see one, really. Most of what I could parse out I seem to agree with and the rest lost me in some kind of jargon (and a few too many paranthetic)

[Silmenume]

Actually it was meant as a reply to another post that I had split off from.  I didn't not know if it was proper forum etiqutte to quote the whole previous post or not.  I will do so now.  If it is impropper, I apologize.

... and you are right, I do use too many parentheticals.  Trying to get away from that.

I think your jargon is tripping you up.  Particularly I recommend that you stop thinking of the group's consensus and your own imagination as "spaces" of any sort.  

You imagine stuff.  The only way for what you imagine to become part of what happens in the game is for you to communicate it.  The Lumpididdly Principiddly governs communication about what happens in the game.  Nothing to it.

Your stuff about "avatars" is just nonsense.  You don't need an "avatar" to "enter" the in-game.  There is, as they say, no there there.  What mediates between you and the in-game is the words and numbers and pictures and things you use to communicate with your fellow players.  The in-game is made of words and numbers and pictures and communication, not imagination.  Your personal imagination leads and follows the group's communicated consensus, and the bridge between them is precisely negotiation.

I'll leave Ron to defend (or not) "explore" as the word for what you do with System, it's his deal.  But try this: "Exploration of System" = "Time and attention paid to participating in the process of determining what happens in the fictional in-game."  Do any of your objections still stand?

-Vincent

Vincent - I realize now that I forgot to address the "avatar" and the "entering" in game issue.  I will do so in a future post.

While the redifinition of Exploration did a address one minor issue, it still does not address the main issues that I had brought up before.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[John Kim]

OK, I too didn't quite have any sense about what was being debated, and I'm still not quite sure.  The contrast (which may or may not be a disagreement) that stood out to me was this:

What mediates between you and the in-game is the words and numbers and pictures and things you use to communicate with your fellow players.  The in-game is made of words and numbers and pictures and communication, not imagination.  Your personal imagination leads and follows the group's communicated consensus, and the bridge between them is precisely negotiation.  

Because the point of roleplay is not to create facts, but to satisfy the desires of the players.  If those desires are not met, it does not matter how much system was employed (LP).  If the created facts do not create any meaning, or do not create a satisfying meaning in the player, then there was no point to playing.  Roleplay is a meaning creation process, not a fact creation process.

Now it's not clear whether they are disagreeing, but I think that Silmenume has a good point.  What is the content or "text" of a game?  Lisa Padol discusses this in her essay http://www.recappub.com/games.html">Collaborative Storytelling in RPGs, for example.  As she puts it, the text of the game is not the transcript of what is said.  I would say that it is ultimately just a collection of individual experiences.  So if all the players walk away satisfied with their individual imaginations, then that is fine even if an outside observer who views the complete transcript finds it unsatisfying.  

The point is that personal imagination can have a place in gaming, and should certainly be discussed.  The ultimate product is a bunch of personal imaginings, and the words and numbers and pictures are just means to that end.  There is no requirement that everyone has to have exactly the same imaginings.  The same words spoken will have subtlely (or perhaps grossly) different meaning to the different participants.  Since this isn't a performance (i.e. a play or book), what matters isn't the words said, but the meaning which each participant assigns to them.  

So a game may have a bunch of different events and subplots.  Not all of the players may be equally involved or interested in all parts of the game.  As long as each of them is satisfied with the parts they are interested in, their participation in the other parts doesn't matter.  Everyone walks away with a different story about what happened.

[lumpley]

I hope nobody's looking for me to disagree.  I agree with everything said so far.

Silmenume, are you just pointing out that the LP can't tell the difference between cool roleplaying and sucky roleplaying?  Because, yeah.  It can't.

-Vincent

[Silmenume]

Actually, no, the point of my post is that the LP has nothing to do with whether or not the game is cool or sucky.  That distinction is reserved entirely for the individual players to make.  That is my point.

Roleplay is a meaning creation process.  The LP is a fact creation process.  Both of the processes are in operation during game play.  The really interesting thing is that the meaning creation process can continue on long after the game play session has ended.  

The meaning creation process is the why we play.  Whether that meaning be victory, story creation, or the experience is not important.  However, because we are still creating something, in this case meaning, the creation of meanings does qualify as something that happened during the game.

This creation of meaning is something that happens outside the LP.  However, this creation of meaning is absolutely central to why we play.  No meaning, no reason to play.

For example - we establish through the exercise of the LP that Character A kills Character B.  We have created several facts.  A killed B.  A is alive.  B is dead.

The significance (meaning) of this event, though, is what makes the game interesting.

Player A could get a gamist meaning from it as it could be that player A was the first to kill anyone, the first to kill a specific person, player A killed more than any other player, etc.  What matters isn't so much that character A killed character B, that happens thousands of times over the course of a campaign, but what it means to the player.  If the killing of character B can be interpreted in a way (assigned a meaning) that satisfies Players A's creative agenda, then something cool has happened for that Player.

This assignment of meaning also applies to Simulationist and Narrativist play.  Since meaning is an internally derived state, and not an externally created fact, then meaning creation is not subject to the LP.  This implies
2 things.  First that it is one can do things outside fact creation to facilitate meaning creation.  Second there are things that can be done to facilitate meaning creation that fall outside the jurisdiction of the LP.

There is more to roleplay than the LP.  This is supported by the model in the level called the Creative Agenda.  Everyone's experience at the game is different from each other's.  Should we not endeavor to capitalize on these differences?  An artist does not want everyone to come away from viewing their creative efforts with the same experience, so why should gaming be any different?  The LP, absolutely essential to play, homogenizes.  The individual experiences based upon events in the LP automatically differ, so why not expend effort creating greater diversity of experiences?  Why not operate on the meaning level as well when playing?  Would it not be more fruitful to spend less effort on the LP portion of the game and more on the meaning portion of the game?  Note by meaning I include victory, story and experience.

Aure Entaluva,

Silmenume

[Alan]

I don't think you can separate creation of meaning from lumpley system.  In an RPG, creation of meaning happens in a loop similar to decisions about what "facts" to add to the group fantasy.  Individuals see meaning, they express it verbally or through body language.  The group interprets this and comes to an implicit consensus, which individuals adjust to.  

In an RPG, meaning creation contributes to the creative agenda cycle.  The player interprets events according to his experience, preferences, and his understanding of group guidelines.  He may or may not communicate and discuss his interpretation with the group.  From his interpretation he conceives potential contributions to the shared fantasy.  Even if he said nothering earlier, his suggested actions communicate something about his interpetation of meaning and the group will respond to that.  

If we look at Ron's venn diagram,

[Social Contract [Exploration [Creative Agenda --> [Techniques [Ephemera]]]]]


We see that it takes this into account by having social contract enclosing everything else.  I believe that social contract includes agreements about how meaning will be created and negotiated, as well as how suggested facts will be entered into the shared fantasy.

Game rules, such as XP and other power rewards, as well as awards of narration rights and other mechanics encourage the group to prefer certain kinds of interpretation.

Meaning creation guidelines and Lumpley system can work at cross purposes, failing to support each other.  This is a form of incoherent play.  In other group process, it is good to develop group guidelines that focus the creation of meaning - they provide yardsticks for assessment of elements and decisions.  Without these guidelines, the group tends to fragment and work at cross purposes, with each individual proposing actions that violate the expectations of others.

In RPG play, meaning creation is inseparable from the system (and the rest of play.)  How each individual interprets meaning directs his contribution to the group.  If each individual interprets meaning differently, they can produce discordant contributions to play.  While if the group also particpates in group creation of meaning, contributions tend to be more harmonious.  

A game design that promotes harmonius contributions will, on average, be more fun for more participants than one that doesn't provide some interpretation guidelines.  Hence the statement that a game designed to support a well-defined creative agenda will tend to be more fun than one that is not.

.

[John Kim]

Everyone's experience at the game is different from each other's.  Should we not endeavor to capitalize on these differences?  An artist does not want everyone to come away from viewing their creative efforts with the same experience, so why should gaming be any different?  The LP, absolutely essential to play, homogenizes.  The individual experiences based upon events in the LP automatically differ, so why not expend effort creating greater diversity of experiences?  

In RPG play, meaning creation is inseparable from the system (and the rest of play.)  How each individual interprets meaning directs his contribution to the group.  If each individual interprets meaning differently, they can produce discordant contributions to play.  While if the group also particpates in group creation of meaning, contributions tend to be more harmonious.  

Above I have quoted out one of the key differences.  I tend to agree with Silmenume here, but it may be miscommunication.  To Alan:  there is no such thing as "group creation of meaning".  The group can only create words (or other symbols/gestures/etc.).  Each individual then creates meaning out of those words.  

I see the difference as this.  

You have a session where a number of events occur.  Now, what is the theme of the story?  Even if it is clear that there was a theme, people will have different interpretations of exactly what it was.  You can sit around at some point and explicitly say "The theme of this story was X".  People can then discuss and analyze whether they agree.  On the other hand, some people don't like this sort of explicit analysis.  Within other arts (like painting/novels/movies/etc.), this sort of analysis is usually left to critics who are usually unrelated to the artists themselves.  Artists often prefer for the meaning to be left up to the reader.  

On the other hand, I'm not sure what difference this makes in practical terms.  What changes in practice or theory are you calling for?  I have some possible suggestions.  In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG I am currently playing in, most of the PCs have fictional blogs (cf my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/buffy/siliconvalley/">campaign page for links).  Rather than objective episode summaries, they are character points-of-view.  Current theory seems to disregard post-session creation of meaning, but it seems to me that the blogs are actually a part of the game -- even though they are not part of the face-to-face interactions.

[Alan]

To Alan:  there is no such thing as "group creation of meaning".

That will be a great surprise to anthropologists and sociologists.  Social construction of reality is an important principle in these studies.

Perhaps I should have said "group negotiation of meaning."

I think I did a pretty good job of describing the process in my previous post.  
Perhaps you will read it again in a new light.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Alan, what you're saying makes sense to me. I don't really think that an "every man for himself" approach to meaning, or Meaning if you will, is going to hold up except perhaps at the most abstract metaphysical level.

Even if a 1% overlap among individuals - by which I mean confirmed through communication - is admissible, then that 1% is what we're talking about.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

Dang. I had a wonderful post written, and I accidentally closed it before posting. Well, here goes--never as good the second time, but let's try.

This is a fascinating thread. My impression here is that Jay is really onto something in distinguishing creation of fact from creation of meaning; and I'm still not sure whether Lumpley applies to creation of meaning, at least entirely. Alan's point about social creation of meaning is excellent (and stopped me from posting earlier, as I knew I was going to have to think about it). I'm not sure where that puts me.

I agree with John that those blogs are part of play. I recommended something very similar a few years back in Wounds Unlimited, in http://www.roleplayingtips.com/articles/re-educating_the_power_gamer.asp">Re-educating the Power Gamer, where I suggested that journals, letters, reports, and other documents written from the character perspective between games can help players identify with their characters. How does this not contribute to the shared imaginary space? Even if the other players don't read the written documents, they impact the way the character is brought to life on the stage, and thus are part of that which informs the character, and through the character the world.

I'm interested in seeing what develops here.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

To Alan:  there is no such thing as "group creation of meaning".

That will be a great surprise to anthropologists and sociologists.  Social construction of reality is an important principle in these studies.
Perhaps I should have said "group negotiation of meaning."  

I can agree with "group negotation of meaning" as something that exists.  There is significant difference between anthropology and art here, though.  Anthropology is looking at construction of meaning on a large scale -- i.e. whole cultures and lifetimes.  However, it is very different when you consider an individual piece of fiction lasting only a few hours.  

I wonder if you're talking about the same thing I am, though.  I would say that any good work of art doesn't have simple meaning.  People can discuss for days, months, or years about what the meaning of a two-hour film is.  By "meaning" here, I am talking about more than just facts (i.e. what a character physically does), but thematic significance and so forth.

[Alan]

Hi M.J.

What occured to me while writing my post is that creation of meaning and creation of fantasy in RPGs are parallel group processes that interact with each other.  I think that teasing them apart might lead to insights.

Historically, RPG designs have left meaning creation to hit and miss interpretation of illustrations, flavor text, and reward systems.  Game designers in the last decade have come to focus more on systems for meaning creation - culminating in Ron's theory of Creative Agenda.  

I wonder what explicit rules for group meaning negotiation in an RPG might look like?

[Alan]

I copied the above post into a new thread, because I think it might make an interesting separate discussion.

You can find it at http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=9133">Systems of group meaning negotiation.

[Alan]

There is significant difference between anthropology and art here, though.  Anthropology is looking at construction of meaning on a large scale -- i.e. whole cultures and lifetimes.

Actually, anthropology tends to focus on small group processes while sociology takes the wider view.  I studied small group processes in my anthro courses - the interpretation and decision process of a small village council, for example - and this is where I got the idea.

I wonder if you're talking about the same thing I am, though.  I would say that any good work of art doesn't have simple meaning.  People can discuss for days, months, or years about what the meaning of a two-hour film is.  By "meaning" here, I am talking about more than just facts (i.e. what a character physically does), but thematic significance and so forth.

We have to make a distinction between static works of art - such as paintings, movies, and books - and interactive art, which is what RPG play is.  

A static work of art is a single expression in an ongoing dialog of artist with his audience.  The feedback loop takes months or years.  The artist's next statment is a new work of art.

In contrast, this same loop can take only seconds in RPG play.  In addition,  the audience members are also the primary creators.  Each cycle of statement and interpretation influences their next suggestion.

Because of the immediacy of feedback and the full involvement of audience as creators, meaning plays a significantly different role in RPG play than in viewing a static work of art.  

So, John, are we talking about the same kind of meaning creation?  Let me know.