Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Started by Jason Lee, February 18, 2004, 06:46:51 PM
Quote from: ChrisIt strikes me that this is interestingly similar to some classic semiotic models, i.e. models for how signs and language manage to communicate meaning. I'm not going to go on a long rant about semiotics here — that would be a very different thread! — but I do want to note that we could align Jason's model to a semiotic one in these terms:Conception is idea or concept Proposal is Sign, the actual unit of communication Validation is Interpretation by what's sometimes called an Interpretant, which just means the person who has to do the interpreting Integration constructs an imagined Referent, a thing to which the Sign refers
Quote from: ChrisFirst, the classic, never-answered question in semiotics is how you get from Sign to Referent. If by Referent you mean an actual physical thing, the answer is you don't. But here, you actually do, because all Referents are part of an imagined space, not a physical one. Thus things (referents) are actually constructed through signification (Proposals, language, signs, etc.). Second, because of this first problem, the sticking-point in these sorts of models is commonly that between Jason's Proposal and his Integration, which is to say it's when the GM (or whoever) has to Validate the Proposal, or Interpret the Sign. This is in fact what we'll find is the central issue in Exploration.
Quote from: ChrisThe only important points I'd change or clarify in Jason's model for this purpose are: – this isn't always about player and GM; really, it's any two players, or any player and any other with the power to Validate a Proposal – a Proposal need not be spoken, as it can include things like rolling dice. It's really anything that amounts to a sign that requires interpretation by another player. Umberto Eco has said that a sign is anything that can be used to lie; in this context, we could say that a Proposal is anything that can turn out to be false, i.e. negatively Validated.
Quote from: ChrisThis reminds me of some old threads about No Myth gamemastering. Fang Langford emphasized this "myth" that prepared material was already present in the game, and said that on the contrary, nothing is present in the shared space until it's, well, shared. The semiotic model would support that conclusion: you can Explore a pre-prepared space, just as you can Explore a totally open-ended one, and either way it requires addition because it requires successive Abductions and Deductions.
Quote from: crucielTotal agreement. Honestly, I never meant to imply otherwise. (See I knew the left out stuff would surface.)
QuoteFang's myth of reality discussions were a big influence on this idea, so it doesn't surprise me that it reminds you of them. ;)
QuoteI'm still fuzzy on Induction, Deduction, and Abduction. I read the words and I know what the words say, but I don't think I'm grasping the concept. Can you define them?
Quote from: clehrichDoes this help at all?
Quote from: IPoints of contact are simply how often this process is regulated by mechanics. Most of the time the process cycles through in a moment. For example, "Bob picks up his cup of coffee." This still had to pass through Conception -> Proposal -> Validation -> Integration, but because the Validation mechanism was simply the unstated phrase "No argument here, go ahead." instead of a mechanical element, we can say that event had low points of contact. This applies to phases other than Validation (The Integration of Bob picking up his coffee is also not mechanically regulated) - Validation is just the easiest to example.