These are my free form notes from the Seminar in Tampere on Playing Roles:
Lieberoth: Drawing on the Canvas of Imagination. Role-playing Games and their Relation to Social and Semantic Knowledge
Mental and public representation.
decoupled thinking (cosmides & Tooby 2000) thinking about thinking.
Sematics and formats.
Must realise that not all can be shared.
Pooling of sanctioned knoweledge.
Clashing individual representation (piaget)
Mental imagery and sharing and information //montola's paper approaches from other angle, interesting, information sharing and subjective worldvies that never can be exactly the same.
//Lieberoth should be infromed about the call for positions in FUGA.
Lisbeth: what about graphical computer games, what happens then? (his example in the presentation was a table top game)
L: like in mmog's are exremely fixed imposed mental representation, fixed.
Liz: but they are still representation, while in a larp a thing is what it is.
L: its the same thing running around in the woods, its still imagining
Craig: thats a crucial distinction. Still a lot is through text, when having visual representation. Problem for computer rpg, loose the imaginative elaboration.
Flood: asbergers syndrome
L: yes have been searching!
Montola: defining and redefining the world, do you agree?
Petri: diagree with the diss of using imagagery, it doesnt take away that one can imagine. Hypothetical reasoning. Need to use imagination to make something out of that too.
L: imagination constantly generative and fluid. Ability for metarepresentation. Our thinking and imagination ...
Craig: The D&D game... Many types of arbitrary monsters, belonging to a gaming world, thoughts on that?
L: peer learing etc etc and then went into a reasoning about structures to remove roles that impose whole cultural concepts.
//discussion about representational dissonance.
Montola: i think visualisation isnt that important as one normally think.