The Forge Archives

All this flap about system is really bugging me. So I will commence ranting.

Also, last night on IRC, Vaxalon explained to me that he feels frustrated 'cos the Forge seems to him like a university with a doctorate program, but no undergrad. You've got all this deep game theory there, but no introductory course. I told him that the Forge regulars are dedicated to helping new people figure this stuff out, but that there's no easy way. It doesn't matter how smart you are, just reading the glossary and hanging out for a couple of weeks doesn't cut it. The average time to really grok the stuff that goes on here is aoubt 6 months to 2 years, depending on how much effort you put into it. There is no easy way.

Still, it seems like anything we can do to ease the process and promote clear understanding would be a good thing. So, hopefully this thread can be a reference point, sorta like Mike's rants, that we can point new people at. Vince, Ron, et. al., chime in. Here we go...

The so-called "Forge definition" of System is not significantly different from what your basic street-gamer means when he says system. The idea of a basic street-gamer definition is a bit problematic, though. Here's why:

I've been around on the net gaming scene for a long time now. I've been in lots of discussions on lots of mailing lists, lurked some gaming groups on usenet, and so on. Everyone out there I've encountered uses the word "system" in the broad sense to mean "how you get stuff done during play." It's true, a lot of the time Joe Street-gamer assumes that "getting stuff done during play" means using the mechanics and rules that are contained in the printed book, sometimes including house-rule mods and stuff in there. But there are also whole bunch of non-Forge people who use the terms "freeform system" and "'systemless' system." These systems are basically ways to get things done that don't involve the constructs that people usually think of as "rpg mechanics." What we at the Forge recognize as system at the Social Contract level.

Of course, there's a lot of wiggle room in there. So you get flame wars about, for example, whether or not the Window really is a system. The reason is that no one has any common ground to determine what system is - Joe Street-gamer's internal perception of system is based on what systems look like. Obviously, this perception is generated from and limited by the games that Joe Street-gamer is familiar with. Joe Street-gamer plays a lot of D&D, Storyteller, Traveller, Rifts, Champions, Shadowrun, etc. In other words, games that are more or less mainstream in the hobby.

So when Joe Street-gamer encounters Jack Freeformer on a net board, there's some friction that often results. Jack Freeformer knows that he gets the same "role-playing stuff" done with his freeform game that Joe Street-gamer does with D&D and Traveller, even though Joe Street-gamer refuses to acknowledge Jack Freeformer's game as an RPG system. I'm not making this up. I've been present, even participated, in these exact discussions.

So far so good. We don't really have a problem with system yet, except that there's a certain degree of disconnection regarding what it actually comprises. Is freeform really system? Does bribing the GM with pizza to let your character live count? (And yes, I saw the pizza one WAY way before coming to the Forge. The idea of a Social Contract layer is not a new one. It just wasn't previously articulated in an organized way. Everyone knows that when the GM's girlfriend is playing, or when two siblings are playing, things are different. Etc.)

So, in the specific context of Forge-type academic RPG discussion, we've got a problem in that "system" as a term is pretty vague. When you're talking about the nitty-gritty details of the act of play, you need specific terms and clasifications. Then along comes Vince with his Lumpley Principle (which he actually stated in proto-form in his very first post here! :) The Big Deal about the LP is not that it's a re-definition of the word "system." The Big Deal is that it's a different way of looking at system. Joe Street-gamer and Joe Freeformer are arguing their perceptions at each other, perceptions that are developed from what system looks like. Vince comes along and says, "hey, it's a lot more practical if you think about system in terms of what it's actually doing when you play."

That's what the LP is all about. It's not about what system looks like. It's not about what the designer says it does, or what the players think it does. It's about checking out what system really really really does when its in action (i.e., during game-play).

Role-playing's most basic level - the Exploration level - is a group of people imagining "stuff" into SiS (Shared imagination Space). Since there's a bunch of people, and only one-person's input can be "officialized" into the SiS at a time, the act of Exploration is basically a negotiation process to determine the final state of the SiS, one point at a time. The LP terms are Credibility (your statements have credibility when they're incorporated into the SiS) and Authority (What constitutes Authority is agreed on at the Social Contract level; Authority gives or deprives a particular statement of credible weight.).

Vince's big lightbulb was that, regardless of what system appears to be, this is the function that it system actually fulfills.  It defines the negotiation process by appointing Authority, and distributing Credibility.

So when Joe Street-gamer talks about system, he's talking about the exact same thing that we're talking about; he just thinks about it in a different way than we do. The important realization is then that Joe Street-gamer's systems are only a subset of the entirity of potential system. Joe Street-gamer has system, it's true. But now that we realize what system is actually doing, Joe Street-gamer's systems are just *one* way to do it. We can find other ways, ways that extend to the Social Contract level, for example, so that now Jack Freeformer is a happy camper too.

Now, here's a bit more about Credibility and Authority. Earlier I said that only one-person's input can be "officialized" into the SiS at a time. This is sort of a generalization that worked for my purposes in that part of my post. It's not exactly true though. In terms of Credibility distribution, implicit acceptance still counts as negotiation.

If everyone is in agreement, it doesn't really matter which person has the Credibility. It's probably the person who's narrating, although it doesn't have to be. The point is that, since everyone agrees, "what gets officialized into the SiS" is the same thing as "what everyone wants to imagine." You could say, based on observation, that the creative input of the entire group at once was incorporated into the SiS, since the negotiation process was invisible. It was still *there,* though, underneath. Someone said something, and everyone else agreed to it.

This is important, because a lot of people assume that "negotiation" requires disagreement. That's not the case. The outcome of a negotiation can be implicit agreement. If I make a statement about something in the SiS and no one challenges it, then it's part of the SiS.

If I make a statement that some people disagree with, but others like, I might modify the statement so that everyone is happy, retract the statement, or over-rule the dissidents if authority supports me. Universalis makes this process explicit.

It's important to note that the printed rules may be the first authority that the players agree to, but that the printed rules can appoint other authorities,  (a GM, dice, a novel, etc.) to the point that the printed rules may be overruled. When the players agree at the SC level to play a particular game, they're also agreeing to these other authorities. The thing is, a lot of times, game texts are notoriously unclear about this issue. Individual groups will beforced to interperet the text themselves. This is one reason that a guy who has played a game a long time with one group can go to another group using the *same game* and experience massive disfunction. The Impossible Thing Before Breakfest is a prime example of this kind of unclarity.

So, I'll finish up with a couple of examples.

Let's take BD&D, practically everyone is familiar with that. The situation is a combat scene. We'll simplify and make it a single PC against an orc. The specific SiS condition under negotiation has to do with the eventual condition of both characters; basically, survival. There are some sub-conditions as well. The player wants to minimize the damage his character takes. The ideal outcome would be, the PC defeats the orc with no loss of HP. Each step of the combat are little mini negotiations. Does the PC hit the orc? Does the orc hit the PC? How much damage does each do? Etc.

This chain of negotiations will eventually result in the resolution of the scene with some degree of favor to either the PC or the orc. The orc might die, the orc might run away, the PC might die, the PC might run away, etc.

The mechanical components of the game are all methods for distributing credibility. They are meta-game resources in the sense that the participants use them to add weight to their statements. Healing potions, weapons, armor, spells, to-hit rolls, the whole shebang, are all examples of Authority nudging the negotiation process in the favor of one side or the other.

The LP lets us recognize that there are also *other* things that can fill the same role. For example, Social Contract level bribes and threats, meta-game conditions and priorities. "My guy is really important to the story!" or "My guy is supposed to be a great swordsman, it doesn't make sense for him to die, just 'cos one lousy orc got a critical!" or "Dude, if you kill my PC, you're sleeping on the couch for a week!" or "Dude, if he dies, that's the last time I bring the pizza!"

etc.

Now, for a drastically different example, there's Universalis. The negotiation process is explicit and open. If someone says something that someone else doesn't like, that other person has the responsibility to himself to challenge the first person's statement. If they can't come to an agreement through actual, conversational negotiation, there's a mechanical authority in the rules (which were, remember, agreed on ahead of time) in the form of bidding coins. The whole group gets involved in this, anyone can contribute coins to one side or the other.

If your challenge is against something that contradicts ane stablished Fact (an SiS element that has been paid for with a coin), your coins count double in the challenge. In Universalis, Authority consists of SiS components that have been paid for with coins, the manipulation of coins by means of mechanical constructs accomplishes the distribution of Credibility.

Universalis also has overt ties to the meta-level of actual play. Players can make new rules and alter old ones, if they have enough coins to back up their propositions in a challenge. The vague social contract stuff about who buys the pizza, showing up late, making monte python jokes, and so on, are handled explicitly as a mechanical component of the system.

In fact, I think the mere existence of Universalis is sufficent to prove that the LP *is* true and really *does* work. People might say "all that social contract crap about pizza and favors is so much bull!" And I say, "oh yeah? Go read Universalis and get back to me."

Just as a final note, Universalis isn't the *only* game out there that incorporates SC layer stuff into the mechanical system. I've seen other game texts that do this, although I'm having trouble coming up with examples off the top of my head. Furthermore, there are lots and lots of game groups out there that, for example, give XP bonuses to the guy who buys the pizza, and XP penalties to the guy who always shows up late, etc.

Are XP really part of the SIS?

If so, then I have a flawed perception of what the SIS is.

Quote from: VaxalonAre XP really part of the SIS?

If I'm understanding Pag correctly, they're not part of the SiS, but they affect it, so they're part of the System.

Quote from: PaganiniSo far so good. We don't really have a problem with system yet, except that there's a certain degree of disconnection regarding what it actually comprises. Is freeform really system? Does bribing the GM with pizza to let your character live count? (And yes, I saw the pizza one WAY way before coming to the Forge. The idea of a Social Contract layer is not a new one. It just wasn't previously articulated in an organized way. Everyone knows that when the GM's girlfriend is playing, or when two siblings are playing, things are different. Etc.)

So, in the specific context of Forge-type academic RPG discussion, we've got a problem in that "system" as a term is pretty vague. When you're talking about the nitty-gritty details of the act of play, you need specific terms and clasifications.

OK, a bit of a counter-rant here.  I find your characterization of the "Street Gamer" painted in contrast to the Forge to be annoying.  In particular, I'm pretty sure that the idea of "Social Contract" here at the Forge derives from the usage of "group contract" on rec.games.frp.advocacy.  So, yes, this idea was previously articulated in an organized way.  Maybe you didn't participate in such discussions -- but there have been and continue to be intelligent discussions of RPGs outside of the Forge -- rgfa, Interactive Fantasy, Imazine, etc.  

Now, I do think that trying to make an all-encompassing formal hierarchical model is at least distinctive of The Forge.  However, it is possible to talk about the concepts without having a hierarchical model.  In fact, in many ways the "street" practice of deriving a definition from lots of canonical examples is superior to having a definition from only a formal theory phrasing.  From recent examples, I am not convinced that the Lumpley Principle is superior for addressing the nitty-gritty details of the act of play.  

Quote from: PaganiniThe LP terms are Credibility (your statements have credibility when they're incorporated into the SiS) and Authority (What constitutes Authority is agreed on at the Social Contract level; Authority gives or deprives a particular statement of credible weight.).

Vince's big lightbulb was that, regardless of what system appears to be, this is the function that it system actually fulfills.  It defines the negotiation process by appointing Authority, and distributing Credibility.

Here I disagree.  Most often, the rules themselves are representational of the SIS (i.e. they are in-game mechanics rather than meta-game mechanics).  They don't directly distribute Credibility among the participants.  For example, when I play Champions in one group, the GM is the rules expert and the players all defer to his  interpretation of the rules.  However, when I play in another group, one player is the rules expert and the GM defers technical rules issues to him.  None of this is internal to the rules themselves.  

Quote from: PaganiniLet's take BD&D, practically everyone is familiar with that. The situation is a combat scene. We'll simplify and make it a single PC against an orc. The specific SiS condition under negotiation has to do with the eventual condition of both characters; basically, survival. There are some sub-conditions as well. The player wants to minimize the damage his character takes. The ideal outcome would be, the PC defeats the orc with no loss of HP. Each step of the combat are little mini negotiations. Does the PC hit the orc? Does the orc hit the PC? How much damage does each do? Etc.

This chain of negotiations will eventually result in the resolution of the scene with some degree of favor to either the PC or the orc. The orc might die, the orc might run away, the PC might die, the PC might run away, etc.

The mechanical components of the game are all methods for distributing credibility.  They are meta-game resources in the sense that the participants use them to add weight to their statements. Healing potions, weapons, armor, spells, to-hit rolls, the whole shebang, are all examples of Authority nudging the negotiation process in the favor of one side or the other.

Again, I disagree.  The vast majority of BD&D's mechanical components don't refer to the participants at all.  i.e. They say what should be done in the SIS, not who does it.  So, for example, there is a rule which says that a Wizard may cast spells a certain number of times per day.  This doesn't distribute credibility -- anyone can refer to it.  Moreover, this rule is representational of the SIS.  i.e. There was no example fiction or background description in BD&D which described this.  Rather, people understood that it was part of the SIS on the basis of the rules.

John, "representational of the SIS" is a red herring.

Pretend you and I are playing a very conventional, very representational RPG.  Ars Magica, say, or GURPS, or Millennium's End, or take your pick.  It's got strength and dex ratings, skill checks, wound levels, etc.  I say to you, "your character falls off the cliff and dies."

Do you take my word for it?

Answer: it depends on the rules.  Did you fail your Staying On roll?  Did I roll Impact Damage over your character's Impact Damage Survival Rating?

The rules' purpose is to distribute credibility.  To aid negotiation.  Maybe they do so by representing the imaginary stuff of the game, maybe they don't - either way their function is to help you decide whether my statements are credible.

-Vincent

Quote from: lumpleyJohn, "representational of the SIS" is a red herring.

Pretend you and I are playing a very conventional, very representational RPG.  Ars Magica, say, or GURPS, or Millennium's End, or take your pick.  It's got strength and dex ratings, skill checks, wound levels, etc.  I say to you, "your character falls off the cliff and dies."

Do you take my word for it?

Answer: it depends on the rules.  Did you fail your Staying On roll?  Did I roll Impact Damage over your character's Impact Damage Survival Rating?

The rules' purpose is to distribute credibility.  To aid negotiation.  Maybe they do so by representing the imaginary stuff of the game, maybe they don't - either way their function is to help you decide whether my statements are credible.

I don't agree.  According to your view here, the rules are only invoked after you as GM declare that my PC is dead in order to establish consensus.  However, the intended function of the rules is to be used by the GM before the announcement, to determine whether or not my PC dies.  Whether I take your word for it, or whether I demand to see the die rolls, or anything like that isn't an explicit part of the rules in this case.  

What you call a "red herring" is what the rules actually do.  i.e. They don't just guide negotiation (i.e. what happens after the announcement).  They are applied before the announcement to determine what happens.

Uh, yeah.  I know.  Of course we made those rolls before I said your guy fell and died.  I hoped that my use of present and past tense might convey that; I guess not.

You roll, I roll, we look at the dice, I say a thing I think you'll assent to.  The reason I think you'll assent to it is because of the rolls.  The rolls contribute to our negotiation about what happens.

What, you think the rolls cause your guy to fall?  What if we roll the dice and the phone rings and I have to jump up and leave before we agree what happens?  What if I roll the dice behind a screen and ignore what they say?  What if we roll in public and decide, fuck that, let's have you not fall?  The dice don't have any causal or representative power, except what we actively give them, moment to moment.

They don't have to be explicitly about credibility; there's nothing else for them to be about!

-Vincent

Hold on.  There are two steps here.  

(1) What statement do I make?  
This is an individual process, not a social one.  By some procedure, I have to decide on what statement I will make.  I can take input from the other players, from the rulebook, or from the weather outside.  But ultimately the decision is internal to me.  

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?
This is a social process.  Once the statement is made, then we enter into a potential negotiation process where the other players either accept or deny the statement.  

Do you agree with this?  Now, what I am saying is that rules can be used in either step #1 or step #2.  The obvious test case is if I am the GM and I am using a GM screen.  Now the players don't see the die roll.  My process of reading and interpreting the die roll isn't involved in convincing the players.  Rather, it is an individual instruction to me.  For example, it could be the case that I as a player respect you as a GM and I accept your rulings even though I don't see the dice.  So here the process of credibility distribution is the same -- but I could be using a variety of means to come up with the results behind my screen.

Quote from: John KimOK, a bit of a counter-rant here.  I find your characterization of the "Street Gamer" painted in contrast to the Forge to be annoying.

I generally try not to be antagonistic in my replies, but really. Suck it up, man. Avoiding your personal annoyance was not one of my posting goals. I really couldn't care less. The "Street Gamer" *does* contrast to the Forge. The "Street Gamer" is not you. The "Street Gamer" is not your buddies from usenet that you're afraid I'm slighting. The "Street Gamer" is my student who plays old-school D&D every week. The "Street Gamer" is the bass player in my orchestra who's been playing D&D for 30 years and just switched over to 3e cos it's the best new advancement in gaming. The "Street Gamer" is the *other* bass player in my orchestra, who wishes he hadn't sold all his MERP stuff when he left college. The "Street-gamer" is the guy who keeps the local B&N stocking d20 modules and WW sourcebooks.

I didn't claim that the Forge is the only place that has ever produced interesting or valuable observations about RPG. If I was going to claim that, I wouldn't do it in this thread.

In terms of your actual objections, you're getting hung up on IEEE issues. This isn't about verbalization. Your two steps that you describe don't really apply. This discussion has nothing to do with whether making distinctions between in-game / meta-game mechanics; it has nothing to do with whether or not the game text references the participants.  Think of it this way:

Nothing is so in the SiS unless the players agree that it is so. I didn't say that they all have to *like* it; they just have to accept it. Without this mutual acceptance, gameplay does not continue. The SiS is *shared.* Without concurrance, the state of the SiS is undefined.

System is the procedure by which this agreement is arrived at. It's how the players decide what is so. The activity of the rules is not to represent SiS. The presentation of the rules *may be* that they represent SiS. But the activity of the rules is to distribute credibility. Credibility does not mean "who gets to talk now."

Thus, any resolution mechanic, or anything that effects the outcome of a resolution mechanic, or even anything that interfaces with the layer of "resolution mechanic stuff" is a part of system. A healing potion in BD&D distributes credibility. So does the damage rating for weapons, the armor class, the saving rolls, the to-hit rolls, monster level dice, etc.

Mechanical constructs are not the entirity of system... they can't force agreement, since the players can always decide not to use the mechanical constructs after all (or even, at all). Conversely, there are other ways to reach agreement that do not involve the mechanical constructs. Mechanical constructs are a component.

Quote from: PaganiniIn terms of your actual objections, you're getting hung up on IEEE issues. This isn't about verbalization. Your two steps that you describe don't really apply. This discussion has nothing to do with whether making distinctions between in-game / meta-game mechanics; it has nothing to do with whether or not the game text references the participants.  Think of it this way:

Nothing is so in the SiS unless the players agree that it is so.

Quote from: PaganiniThus, any resolution mechanic, or anything that effects the outcome of a resolution mechanic, or even anything that interfaces with the layer of "resolution mechanic stuff" is a part of system. A healing potion in BD&D distributes credibility. So does the damage rating for weapons, the armor class, the saving rolls, the to-hit rolls, monster level dice, etc.

Verbalization is vital to this because the process of giving a statement group credibility can only happen after it has been verbalized.  Anything which happens outside of that process is not involved in the credibility-granting process.  i.e. If something is not visible or important to the other players, then it is not part of credibility-granting.  

I agree that there is a process of arriving at group consensus.  You can choose to call that process "Big-S System".  However, rules such as the published BD&D rules are not solely concerned with this step of the game.  Let's consider some simple and common cases:

(1) A BD&D GM states "The dragon claws at you", and the players nod.  Behind his GM screen, he then rolls to-hit, looks on his PC stat-sheet the defense, determines a hit, and rolls damage.  Between the earlier nod and here, no credibility-granting has been invoked, since none of these steps are visible to the players.  Thus, none of the roll, look-up, or mechanics consultation is Big-S System.  

(1a) As an added case, consider where the GM hasn't prepared for a session, and instead just rolls a die and makes stuff up without even looking at the die roll.  Now, the players don't know that this is true.  So thus, Big-S System is exactly the same as in case #1.  However, the mechanics used -- i.e. small-s system -- are quite different.  

(2) An experienced D&D player has her PC cast a spell.  Having studied the magic rules for her character, she states what the spell does.  The others haven't read those rules.  However, rather than looking the rules up, they say "OK, Gen, we trust you."  The rules in question have nothing to do with the credibility granting process, since no one else has read them.  However, her statement is in fact following the rules.  So there is Big-S System involved here -- but the rules are irrelevant to the Big-S System.  

(3) I am playing in a Tunnels and Trolls campaign.  However, no one can meet for a while.  I decide to try one of the T&T solo modules using my character.  Using the same mechanics as the face-to-face game, I run through the solo module.  In this case, the idea of granting social credibility is nonsensical.  I'm the only one there.  And yet I'm using the exact same rules to determine what happens.  

All of these are pointing to the same thing: that mechanics are not solely for the purpose of determining credibility.  

Just to re-iterate once again:  I am not denying that consensus-forming happens!!!  It does happen and it is important.  However, in addition to the group process of granting statements credibility, there is the individual process of coming up with what statements to say.  Rules can affect either of these two steps.

Quote from: John Kim
(1) A BD&D GM states "The dragon claws at you", and the players nod.  Behind his GM screen, he then rolls to-hit, looks on his PC stat-sheet the defense, determines a hit, and rolls damage.  Between the earlier nod and here, no credibility-granting has been invoked, since none of these steps are visible to the players.  Thus, none of the roll, look-up, or mechanics consultation is Big-S System.  

Because it was previously negotiated by the players that the GM is empowered to make this judgement by appropriate procedural consultation of The Tome.  The players have already conceded to the GM the right to rule, that is, the credibility to make this statement.

Quote
(1a) As an added case, consider where the GM hasn't prepared for a session, and instead just rolls a die and makes stuff up without even looking at the die roll.  Now, the players don't know that this is true.  So thus, Big-S System is exactly the same as in case #1.  However, the mechanics used -- i.e. small-s system -- are quite different.  

So the GM is relying on the credibility they have already been granted to lie.  Thats OK, I heartily commend lying to auteur-GM's.  This is the kind of thing that may very well cause a major ruckus, if it's ever exposed.  It is in fact a covert breaking of the social contract and could get the GM tarred and feathered.

Quote
(2) An experienced D&D player has her PC cast a spell.  Having studied the magic rules for her character, she states what the spell does.  The others haven't read those rules.  However, rather than looking the rules up, they say "OK, Gen, we trust you."  The rules in question have nothing to do with the credibility granting process, since no one else has read them.  However, her statement is in fact following the rules.  So there is Big-S System involved here -- but the rules are irrelevant to the Big-S System.  

All this indicates is that to some degree, and within the province of their specialty, the player has the credibility to make authoritative rules statements/interpretations.

Quote
(3) I am playing in a Tunnels and Trolls campaign.  However, no one can meet for a while.  I decide to try one of the T&T solo modules using my character.  Using the same mechanics as the face-to-face game, I run through the solo module.  In this case, the idea of granting social credibility is nonsensical.  I'm the only one there.  And yet I'm using the exact same rules to determine what happens.

Not at ALL.  The social credibility aspect lies in the fact that you have to persuade the rest of the players that this is OK if the character is to be re-introduced to combined play.  Nobody is going to be happy if you turn up and explain how, in a private side adventure, you got the ring to the crack of doom and threw it in; you would be unlikely to have the credibility to make such a statement.  So more likely, you would procure such consent/credibility prior to doing so.  If you do not obtain suych agreement, you would be arrogating such credibility to yourself unilaterally.

I cannot see any challenge in any of these scenarios to the standing position that rules apportion credibility.

As someone that's new to these forums (less than a week), can I ask a favour?

When we get to a consensus on what exactly is covered by the Lumpley Principle can we please get it written up and posted to the articles section?

It sounds like a great theoritical model, but unless we have a deffinitive reference that we can refer each other to we are just going round in circles.

At the moment it looks to me like it is still hotly under debate rather than a locked down theory. For christs sake 6 out of 10 top threads seem to be discussions or rants about it, and then you expect someone new to the site to be able to puzzle thier way through it.

Now there may be a deffinitive Lumpley Principle text somewhere, and some of the threads discussing it might even link to it. But I've seen no such link in this thread and as the other threads look similar only emphesising different aspects of the theory I'm not going to waste my time trawling through them.

All I would say is don't expect a newbie to be able to hold a discussion on the Lumley Principle if you don't give him an accurate and concise copy of the principle in the first place.

[Sorry to pick on your thread for this Paganini, I know this is what you are actually trying to do, it's not specific to your thread, I'm just trying to address some unrealistic expectations a lot of people around here seem to have]

Just a few thoughts that have been in my mind for a while now:
The idea of a SiS might be a pretty good model for a few things concerning the LP or System, but I think it breaks down here (seeing John Kim´s problems with it).

Well, let me say this first: The SiS does not exist! Sorry to tell you, but this might be the main issue that makes understanding (and explaining for that matter) difficult. Instead durig play we have a couple of Individual Imaginary Spaces (IiS), one for each player, that are more or less coherent (they have to be coherent for play to continue).

Now what I would propose System does is the following:
1. System does regulate the process of how each INDIVIDUAL PLAYER accepts things into their own IiS.
2. System is designed to keep the individual IiS at least somewhat coherent.
Now the SiS could be seen as an abstraction of all that is coherent in the multiple IiS.

What does that mean? I think it means that this model can account for the issues John (Kim) brought up. Let take a look at his example:
A GM rolls to hit behind a screen. Now System (part 1) kicks in. The System might tell him, that the ork hit the player character (because of the dice, because it seems appropriate, because he feels like it, whatever). Now accepting this the ork has hit the character in the GM´s personal IiS.
Now System (part 2) kicks in: the two IiS have become incoherent and play can probably not continue without resolving this. the System might tell  the GM to verbalize what happened in his own IiS and to make the player accept that and change his own IiS accordingly. So he tells the player: "The ork hits you!".
Now System (part 1) kicks in for the player. Part 2 of the System insists that the IiS must align and that the verbalized difference must be resolved. The System might tell the player that the GM has rolled the dice and that he has to adhere to this ruling. So now in the players personal IiS the character got hit by the ork too. the IiS are coherent again and play can continue.

Another example might be wandering monster tables. The System is used by the GM to conduct changes in his own IiS (which is still some kind of negotiation with himself since he does not have to accept the roll). Negotiation with the other players comes later on, when his IiS is changed and therefore incoherent with the other players IiS to resolve this incoherence.

I think that the idea of IiS might settle the differences and account for the fact that System indeed can seem to "spawn things into the SiS". And thats how I understood John´s comments in this thread.

Y'know, John's right.  He has been since this:

QuoteThere are two steps here.

(1) What statement do I make?
This is an individual process, not a social one. By some procedure, I have to decide on what statement I will make. I can take input from the other players, from the rulebook, or from the weather outside. But ultimately the decision is internal to me.

(2) Do the other players accept the statement that I make?
This is a social process. Once the statement is made, then we enter into a potential negotiation process where the other players either accept or deny the statement.

Do you agree with this? Now, what I am saying is that rules can be used in either step #1 or step #2.

The process by which the group decides what happens in the game includes the process by which individual players decide what to suggest.  Absolutely!  The rules you're playing by constrain and provoke your input, no question about it.

The important thing that "constrain and provoke your input" and "apportion credibility" have in common is that they're about the interactions of the human beings playing the game.

-Vincent

Don't have much to add right this minute, but I want to say that I kinda like Nicolas' idea about multiple Individual imagination Spaces. That seems like it might be a usefull addition. The Shared imagination Space would be the common elements of all the Individual imagination Spaces. If there's some point where the Individual imgination Spaces don't match, we've got to somehow decide which one is right, or if something completely different is the case.

Oh yeah, and, mindwanders, just because the LP has been around a while, is well-established, and generally well understood, that doesn't mean that *everyone* groks it or agrees with it. It also doesn't preclude the possibility of further development.