I've read all the articles, and I have tried to read all the boards - but there is a lot here.

My current stumbling block is "Exploration" and ... well, what it means.

It seems to mean several things, all at once.

Firstly it seems to mean "Experiancing the SIS", as in that you feel and understand the Imagined World being created. This seems to be most prevelant in Simulationist play.

Secondly, it seems to also mean "Exploring the consequences" *within* the SIS - or, in otherwords, "If I do this, what happens" - I suppose an attempt to Understand what is going on.

Finally, it also seems to mean the act of "Creation of the SIS", instigating situations for other people to experiance.

Or have I missed the point?

Sorry if I am being dumb, but I can't quite grasp *what* is meant by Exploration.

As it is the fundamental part of the whole model, can someone nail down what it is?

Simon

As far as I can see, yes, yes, and yes.

"Exploring" is used as widely here as it is in general useage. You can explore imaginary space, you can explore consequences, you can explore the implications of a system, you can explore character. Generally, it also includes "internally consistent" creativity within the SiS, as if these created elements have been "discovered" in the SiS, rather than "created" outside it*.

So yes, for exploration, read the creation, maintenance and discovery of the shared imaginary space by whatever means used

Oh, and hi, nice to see someone from my old hometown...

*This is especially important in sim, but pretty important outside any self-referential post-modern style of gaming

From the glossary:

Exploration

The imagination of fictional events, established through communicating among one another. Exploration includes five Components: Character, Setting, Situation, System, and Color. See also Shared Imagined Space (a near or total synonym).

Shared Imagined Space (SIS, Shared Imagination)

The fictional content of play as it is established among participants through role-playing interactions. See also Transcript (which is a summary of the SIS after play) and Exploration (a near or total synonym).

---------------------

Exploration is the essential act of all roleplaying, regardless of creative agenda. From the http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/bigmodelpic.pdf you can see that exploration is a category that also includes the process of inventing the imaginary material and accepting it into the game.

I'm new to this as well and what you've said sounds like what I've read. We're years late to this discussion so a lot of principles have been explored. At this point it's hard to jump in. It's not just a matter of learning the terminology but also the "creative agenda" of what the old participants of this discussion want from it.

Is it moving towards a theory of role playing? If so then the next step would be to take it to the academic journals.

Is it moving towards new games?

Is it just fun to talk?

I don't know.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press

Hiya,

At present, the purpose of discussion in this forum is to improve the understanding of my ideas of those who are interested. Since I am the author of most of the relevant essays, that means that sometimes I'm the best person to answer or lead discussions, but also that sometimes other people are better at it.

A secondary purpose is for people to raise issues that help me to understand role-playing better, whether by pointing out inconsistencies or problems with what I've written, or by suggesting an avenue or application that I've overlooked.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: pointing out inconsistencies or problems with what I've written

Right - although there's another avenue I forgot to mention as well.

Another useful purpose for this forum is for people to re-examine the ideas in light of their own training and perspectives, to see if they make sense "in another shape."

In a way, some folks do that through designing games with the Big Model and its predecessors in mind. Which is a pretty major way to field-test the ideas.

Less drastically, discussions here often proceed from someone's interest in, say, cultural anthropology and a highly sophisticated concept of "myth," like Chris Lehrich (an article of his on this topic is available). Or any number of other perspectives, such as folks who have an intimate knowledge of RPG/theoretical developments in Scandinavian countries.

When my ideas do not fit in these contexts (theoretical re-casting and comparison, not game design), then we are faced with a question of "why not." Sometimes it's due to utterly incompatible sets of assumptions between the two idea-sets; other times it's an indicator that something needs re-phrasing, or even abandoning and replacement.

Best,
Ron