This is a branch from this thread, focusing on developing our understanding of mystification in techniques. I believe this is of interest to understanding the shared space of mystifications, which I've termed the meta-SIS.

Essentially this thread is intended to be an open call for technigues people have used or encountered that operate primarilly by changing what is mystified in the game.

Here are some pieces to the puzzle:

Techniques which distinguish the SIS, essentially defining what "counts" or what is part of the inner space in a ritual sense. One example of this is the use of definitions in the meta-SIS. These allow the use of these terms or ideas as definite elements of the meta-SIS.

In Step-on-up, this presents itself in the fact that character effectiveness entire is not usually the focus, rather it is quantities or qualities which have been defined, which are the focus. This is why some D&D players will compete over maximum damage on an attack, or in a round, rather than incorporating the probability of inflicting said maximum. The former term is easier to define into the meta-SIS, and so it becomes synonymous with character effectiveness, essentially as a symbol. This form of mystification also occurs in Nar when overt premises are used as these premises will have a significant guiding effect, above the need for play simply to be premise-ful. By presenting things into the meta-SIS, other possibilities are diminished by the accentuation.

Another type of technique is the use of covert authority. By introducing social pressures, which are as simple as manners of speech and expression, the meta-SIS can be modified to inhibit or activate certain ideas. As usual, the meta-SIS, unlike the SIS is built on a limited resource. The social media cannot maintain too much complexity, if one thing is activated, usually other things will be naturally inhibited.

A third technique is that of conflict resolution, namely how inconsistencies in the SIS are managed by the meta-SIS. These come in many forms, implicit currency of credibility, authority mandate, textual mandate, or just social pressure. Also of interest is the techniques used to identify conflicts, or to inhibit their appearance. Especially in more centralized (GM-authority) games there is a mystification around inconsistencies. Unless the change is too jarring then I refine my copy of the SIS to match. This conflict avoidance reduces the aparent inconsitencies, so makes everyone feel the SIS is well communicated (which in turn enhances this same technique). Often pervasive techniques will have this sort of behavior, as self-catalyzing structures of the meta-SIS. Alternatively the acceptance of inconsistency in the SIS is a valid technique that is much rarer, presumeably because it lacks this self-catalyzing.

I hope that is food for thought,

-Mendel S.