|
1 About the Forge </about/> | Articles </articles/> | Forum </forum/> | |
|
2 Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/> |
|
3 |
|
4 *198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - |
|
5 kuljek |
|
6 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6115>* Most |
|
7 online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, |
|
8 03:03:12 PM) |
|
9 |
|
10 + *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>* |
|
11 |-+ *General Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1>* |
|
12 | |-+ *GNS Model Discussion |
|
13 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0>* |
|
14 | | |-+ *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
15 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.0>* « previous |
|
16 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.0;prev_next=prev> |
|
17 next » <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774;prev_next=next> |
|
18 |
|
19 *Pages:* [*1*] Print |
|
20 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=774.0> |
|
21 |
|
22 Author Topic: The 4 steps of action (for Ron) (Read 2589 times) |
|
23 |
|
24 *Manu <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=223>* |
|
25 Member |
|
26 |
|
27 Posts: 55 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
|
30 View Profile |
|
31 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=223> |
|
32 |
|
33 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6701#msg6701> |
|
34 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
35 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6701#msg6701>* |
|
36 « * on:* October 18, 2001, 11:55:00 AM » |
|
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
40 Hey again, |
|
41 |
|
42 you mention these four steps in any action: Intention, Initiation, |
|
43 Completion and Effect; could you again provide some examples of what you |
|
44 were thinking about? Thank you - great essay by the way :smile: |
|
45 Logged |
|
46 |
|
47 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
48 ------------- |
|
49 Manu |
|
50 |
|
51 *Ron Edwards |
|
52 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>* |
|
53 Global Moderator |
|
54 Member |
|
55 * |
|
56 Posts: 12610 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 View Profile |
|
60 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW |
|
61 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com> |
|
62 |
|
63 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6793#msg6793> |
|
64 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
65 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6793#msg6793>* |
|
66 « *Reply #1 on:* October 19, 2001, 08:52:00 AM » |
|
67 |
|
68 |
|
69 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
70 Hey Manu, |
|
71 |
|
72 Whoo doggies ... can I ask a favor and sort of belay this one for a |
|
73 while? What with Scenes and Tasks and Gamism and Audience and all that, |
|
74 it's pretty thick at the moment. |
|
75 |
|
76 This topic is a BIIIG deal and I think we can probably move it to the |
|
77 Design forum. How about in a couple days? |
|
78 |
|
79 Best, |
|
80 Ron |
|
81 Logged |
|
82 |
|
83 *Ron Edwards |
|
84 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>* |
|
85 Global Moderator |
|
86 Member |
|
87 * |
|
88 Posts: 12610 |
|
89 |
|
90 |
|
91 View Profile |
|
92 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW |
|
93 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com> |
|
94 |
|
95 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7044#msg7044> |
|
96 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
97 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7044#msg7044>* |
|
98 « *Reply #2 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:44:00 AM » |
|
99 |
|
100 |
|
101 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
102 Hi Manu, |
|
103 |
|
104 I'm finally ready to address the issues in this post, but believe me, |
|
105 it's a biggie. I hope we get somewhere ? |
|
106 |
|
107 Let's consider an event that is established through role-playing as |
|
108 "happened" in the game-world. I look back over last night's game, and I |
|
109 can say, "Sebastian killed the ogre." |
|
110 |
|
111 Now you and I know that Sam (the player) and the rest of the people he |
|
112 played with had to do SOMETHING to establish that. Dice and whatnot may |
|
113 have been involved, but ultimately, it was social and verbal. Sam had to |
|
114 propose something and through whatever mechanism, everyone else came to |
|
115 agree with it and how it came to pass. |
|
116 |
|
117 The topic at hand is not the DFK mechanisms involved (not initially |
|
118 anyway), but rather the communication among the role-players (GM, |
|
119 players alike) to establish the event. I am talking about whatever Sam |
|
120 and anyone else SAID during that process. |
|
121 |
|
122 OK, during play, here we are, and Sam is playing Sebastian, and there's |
|
123 the big evil ogre. Sam says, "I attack him!" |
|
124 |
|
125 What the hell did Sam just establish in the imaginative game-world? |
|
126 Depending on the game system and/or the group, it could have been any of |
|
127 the following. |
|
128 |
|
129 Intention: Sam has announced Sebastian's intention, but in the |
|
130 game-world, Sebastian has not yet moved or done anything. That must wait |
|
131 upon some other step of the process. |
|
132 |
|
133 Initiation: Sebastian has officially moved into action; his sword is |
|
134 raised, he is moving and grimacing and so on. |
|
135 |
|
136 Completion: Sebastian has completed his sword stroke; the action, for |
|
137 all purposes, is finished. |
|
138 |
|
139 Effect: Sebastian's sword-stroke has produced its consequences and we |
|
140 have established just what has happened to the ogre and to Sebastian. |
|
141 |
|
142 In actual role-playing, I have seen EVERY one of these categories as an |
|
143 interpretation of Sam's statement. |
|
144 |
|
145 For a role-playing situation to be functional at the most basic level, |
|
146 the group as a whole must know and agree upon which one it is. I think |
|
147 that most of us are aware how jarring, disruptive, and plain Not Fun it |
|
148 is, when people at the role-playing table are disagreeing about which of |
|
149 the four categories is being established by an announced action. |
|
150 |
|
151 "But I said it!" is the issue. What, in fact, did you say? Intent, |
|
152 Initiation, Completion, or Effect? |
|
153 |
|
154 Game designs vary in the extent to which they either ESTABLISH or ASSUME |
|
155 the status of Sam's announcement in regard to the four categories. |
|
156 |
|
157 By far and away, the most common solution is to break down the |
|
158 game-world causality into linear form. |
|
159 1) Establish order of actions among all participants. Each character may |
|
160 now be considered "frozen" in the beginning of the sequence. |
|
161 2) Resolve the action of the first participant in terms of (a) |
|
162 unfreezing, such that the action may now be announced in full by the |
|
163 player; (b) motions of the character from initiation through completion |
|
164 through result. |
|
165 3) Continue through all characters. |
|
166 |
|
167 Please note that this paradigm exists with or without Fortune playing a |
|
168 role. In Champions, step 1 is fixed by Speed and Dexterity, whereas in |
|
169 other games each round requires a new Initiative determination (e.g. |
|
170 roll). In still others, the order is purely metagame in terms of "go |
|
171 around to the left" or something like that. For purposes of the present |
|
172 topic, this distinction does not matter. |
|
173 |
|
174 Several tweaks of this paradigm exist. They include: |
|
175 - "Saved" actions - explicitly permitting characters to reserve their |
|
176 actions past the point of order, to use as an "interrupt" prior to |
|
177 another, subsequent character's action. |
|
178 - Formalizing and fixing the announcements of actions prior to step two. |
|
179 E.g. in Sun & Storm, the characters' actions are announced in order of |
|
180 slowest-to-fastest between steps 1 and 2, and then resolved in order of |
|
181 fastest-to-slowest in step 2 as normal. |
|
182 - Assigning point-costs to actions such that one may manage a resource |
|
183 to distribute one's moments of action through the round (example: Shot |
|
184 Costs in Feng Shui). |
|
185 |
|
186 I suggest that this approach to the problem is functional, but it does |
|
187 have its limitations. For instance, the "saved" modification tends to |
|
188 result in everyone announcing "I save" and then playing |
|
189 multiple-interrupts on each other during each person's action. Or, some |
|
190 people dislike the "freeze" effect generated in the imagination. |
|
191 |
|
192 However, this paradigm is not the only one. Another is essentially |
|
193 "laissez-faire" for actions, in which everyone is expected to agree |
|
194 about the order informally, which in practice usually means the GM may |
|
195 rearrange who is going first and what happens when, for each series of |
|
196 actions in a group situation. The Window operates in this fashion, |
|
197 assuming that everyone's good faith is more reliable than a step-by-step |
|
198 method. In practice, this usually gives so much power to the GM that he |
|
199 or she may as well be writing the entire scene (especially insofar as |
|
200 many climactic scenes rely very heavily on the timing and sequence of |
|
201 actions). |
|
202 |
|
203 I have observed the laissez-faire method to founder on many occasions, |
|
204 due to confusions between the four categories. When Sam says, "I attack |
|
205 him," Sam and the GM and everyone else can be quite at odds about |
|
206 whether Sebastian is actually in motion or not. A subsequent |
|
207 announcement may influence Sam to say, "Um, actually I don't," or |
|
208 conversely, "But I'm already attacking him!" or anything in between. On |
|
209 the other hand, I am assured by many people that they prefer this |
|
210 method, and I can only assume that the group in question has informally |
|
211 worked out a standard for which category is being applied for a given |
|
212 announced action. I suspect that in these groups that Balance of Power |
|
213 heavily favors the GM. |
|
214 |
|
215 Finally, Zero introduced an novel solution - announced actions are ONLY |
|
216 Intent, and finalized as Initiation only at the end of a "free |
|
217 discussion" about them. The order of the actions are established |
|
218 simultaneously with the resolution of the actions (it's the same roll). |
|
219 Results of the actions are all then established in order. Sorcerer's |
|
220 group-resolution mechanic imitates that of Zero with minor differences. |
|
221 |
|
222 Another solution is found in Extreme Vengeance, in which order is fixed |
|
223 but adjustable due to metagame resources, and Hero Wars follows this lead. |
|
224 |
|
225 There are lots of other solutions or models as well, but none so |
|
226 consistently established across many games as the first two. If I'm |
|
227 leaving out your favorite, please don't have a cow about it; this post |
|
228 is long enough already. |
|
229 |
|
230 If anyone would like to add insight to this breakdown, or to disagree |
|
231 with it entirely, or otherwise to give me some feedback about it, I'm |
|
232 very interested. It's a really big deal and - in my opinion - even more |
|
233 fundamental than DFK. The four categories obviously are integrated in |
|
234 many ways with conflict vs. task resolution, and I'd like to work out |
|
235 some of those relationships as well. |
|
236 |
|
237 Best, |
|
238 Ron |
|
239 Logged |
|
240 |
|
241 *Laurel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216>* |
|
242 Member |
|
243 |
|
244 Posts: 243 |
|
245 |
|
246 |
|
247 View Profile |
|
248 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216> WWW |
|
249 <http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/white_wolf_games> |
|
250 |
|
251 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7063#msg7063> |
|
252 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
253 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7063#msg7063>* |
|
254 « *Reply #3 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:19:00 AM » |
|
255 |
|
256 |
|
257 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
258 I think IICE is brilliant, and its a game mechanic I'm working on this |
|
259 week for my own game. I want players to be able to state their |
|
260 character's Intent, and if the action seems possible but not absolutely |
|
261 assured, for them to pause long enough for a very quick fortune-based |
|
262 check. |
|
263 |
|
264 Regardless of the outcome of the check (success, failure, or |
|
265 catastrophe), I want players to proceed to the Initation without stating |
|
266 a new Intent, even if they know the action is going to fail and to |
|
267 role-play through to the Completion using a Director's stance to provide |
|
268 the elements that explain specifically why the action was successful or |
|
269 a failure. The Effect will be announced by the next player to pick up |
|
270 the narrative, as an introduction to their own Intent. |
|
271 |
|
272 What I'm stumbling over right now is the best mechanism for determining |
|
273 order of actions. My design goal is to minimalize disruptions to |
|
274 Narrative play, so that the story flows with as few meta-game |
|
275 interruptions as possible. The standard linear form of resolution (what |
|
276 Ron posted as step 1-3) required enormous quantities of meta-game |
|
277 interruption. I'm not saying this is bad, or bad for every game, but |
|
278 its something I'm trying to avoid without running smack into the |
|
279 organizational and coherency issues of freeform. |
|
280 Logged |
|
281 |
|
282 *Ron Edwards |
|
283 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>* |
|
284 Global Moderator |
|
285 Member |
|
286 * |
|
287 Posts: 12610 |
|
288 |
|
289 |
|
290 View Profile |
|
291 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW |
|
292 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com> |
|
293 |
|
294 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7066#msg7066> |
|
295 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
296 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7066#msg7066>* |
|
297 « *Reply #4 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:42:00 AM » |
|
298 |
|
299 |
|
300 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
301 Actually, Laurel, I suggest that you're struggling with an impossible |
|
302 design goal here: |
|
303 |
|
304 "My design goal is to minimalize disruptions to Narrative play, so that |
|
305 the story flows with as few meta-game interruptions as possible." |
|
306 |
|
307 Narrativism relies on a very strong metagame presence, and I've found |
|
308 that, counter-intuitively, it HELPS the story flow by acknowledging it. |
|
309 |
|
310 I think the key issue, though, is "disruption" rather than metagame vs. |
|
311 in-game. The traditional/common method, for instance, LOOKS as if it's |
|
312 very logical, but if people change their actions at the last second, you |
|
313 have a whole renegotiatory process going on with every character at |
|
314 every action. It's that kind of disruption that I think CAN be avoided. |
|
315 |
|
316 Best, |
|
317 Ron |
|
318 Logged |
|
319 |
|
320 *Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>* |
|
321 Member |
|
322 |
|
323 Posts: 1363 |
|
324 |
|
325 |
|
326 View Profile |
|
327 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW |
|
328 <http://www.scattershotgames.com> |
|
329 |
|
330 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7078#msg7078> |
|
331 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
332 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7078#msg7078>* |
|
333 « *Reply #5 on:* October 23, 2001, 04:19:00 PM » |
|
334 |
|
335 |
|
336 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
337 Warning: system plug ahead. |
|
338 |
|
339 This simplifies very well, kudos to you Mr. Edwards. |
|
340 |
|
341 Quote |
|
342 Ron Edwards wrote: |
|
343 |
|
344 The topic at hand is...the communication among the role-players to |
|
345 establish the event...could have been any of the following. |
|
346 |
|
347 Intention: ...the game-world...has not yet moved or done anything. That |
|
348 must wait upon some other step of the process. |
|
349 |
|
350 Initiation: ...moved into action... |
|
351 |
|
352 Completion: ...the action...is finished. |
|
353 |
|
354 Effect: ...has...established just what has happened... |
|
355 |
|
356 Very well conceived! (Just one small quibble, since I would include |
|
357 what happens between the initiation and completion of an action - the |
|
358 act itself ? in with the second group, I might call it Action, as it |
|
359 ?caught in the act.?) |
|
360 |
|
361 Quote |
|
362 In actual role-playing, I have seen EVERY one of these categories as an |
|
363 interpretation of Sam's statement. |
|
364 |
|
365 For a role-playing situation to be functional at the most basic level, |
|
366 the group as a whole must know and agree upon which one it is. I think |
|
367 that most of us are aware how jarring, disruptive, and plain Not Fun it |
|
368 is, when people at the role-playing table are disagreeing about which of |
|
369 the four categories is being established by an announced action. |
|
370 |
|
371 You have that right. We felt so too when creating Scattershot; in fact |
|
372 we felt that our mechanics had to first act as a communal language, thus |
|
373 such concepts had to be explicitly delineated in the text. |
|
374 |
|
375 Quote |
|
376 By far and away, the most common solution is to break down the |
|
377 game-world causality into linear form. |
|
378 1) Establish order of actions among all participants. Each character may |
|
379 now be considered "frozen" in the beginning of the sequence. |
|
380 2) Resolve the action of the first participant in terms of (a) |
|
381 unfreezing, such that the action may now be announced in full by the |
|
382 player; (b) motions of the character from initiation through completion |
|
383 through result. |
|
384 3) Continue through all characters. |
|
385 |
|
386 This is too true amongst traditional games. And as you point out leads |
|
387 to many confusing situations. I originally found that ?initiative |
|
388 rolls? seemed to be a mechanism to collapse many ?intangibles? about |
|
389 what can or cannot affect who makes the first (nigh?) successful attack |
|
390 in a combat. To that I said, "Why skip the role-playing?" |
|
391 |
|
392 What eventually resulted (mostly because I was lazy in my analysis of |
|
393 the many varied systems out there) was stripping out such mechanics |
|
394 entirely. As a game of Scattershot proceeds, when anyone does anything |
|
395 that raises the tension level to a degree that, in all fairness, more |
|
396 detail is needed to parse out, ?rounds? begin. And they begin with that |
|
397 participant?s character. It need not be anything traditionally thought |
|
398 of as melee (owing largely to my feeling that violent aggression need |
|
399 not always come to blows), just anything that creates the narrative |
|
400 atmosphere the [i]can[/] result in a fight. |
|
401 |
|
402 I take a page from so many gunslinger movies where, to me, the battle |
|
403 begins with an insult, tossed drink, or silent response (with the |
|
404 villain seemingly tempting the hero to ?make the first move?). Not only |
|
405 did all ?statements? in Scattershot?s combat need to be ?initiations,? |
|
406 all statements had to be, certainly because any of them could shift play |
|
407 into combat-turn-sequencing. (Heck, ?regular? play is described as |
|
408 loosely following this sequencing anyway; combat?s need for impartiality |
|
409 simply makes it more structured.) |
|
410 |
|
411 Quote |
|
412 - Formalizing and fixing the announcements of actions prior to step two. |
|
413 E.g. in Sun & Storm, the characters' actions are announced in order of |
|
414 slowest-to-fastest between steps 1 and 2, and then resolved in order of |
|
415 fastest-to-slowest in step 2 as normal. |
|
416 |
|
417 As an aside, for all my bad experiences with role-playing gaming, this |
|
418 is the style whose author I most wish to go back in time and strangle in |
|
419 their crib. |
|
420 |
|
421 Quote |
|
422 On the subject of 'saved actions:? |
|
423 |
|
424 I suggest that this approach to the problem is functional, but it does |
|
425 have its limitations. For instance, the "saved" modification tends to |
|
426 result in everyone announcing "I save" and then playing |
|
427 multiple-interrupts on each other during each person's action. Or, some |
|
428 people dislike the "freeze" effect generated in the imagination. |
|
429 |
|
430 I saw that too. In Scattershot, saved actions must have explicit |
|
431 ?activation? conditions and are lost when play comes back to the player. |
|
432 Likewise, combined with actions that do not weigh upon a character?s |
|
433 combat, Scattershot combat can take on an air of that tense circling I |
|
434 am fond of in cinema. |
|
435 |
|
436 For Scattershot we decided to scrap all the complexity of turn ordering |
|
437 mechanics in favor of a clear and simple ?counter-clockwise around the |
|
438 table? system. To make up for things reflected by those rules, we took |
|
439 note from the game theory premise it seemed to be founded on: ?they who |
|
440 attack first, have the advantage.? This might be important where |
|
441 decisive blows can be easily had, but since this was not the case, we |
|
442 let the above, ?whoever initiated goes first? rule determine combat (in |
|
443 playtest, we found that this gives the desired level of cinema to our |
|
444 system). |
|
445 |
|
446 The effect this had was to place more focus on the role-playing aspect |
|
447 of the game. In tense scenes it could really be important who |
|
448 ?initiated? as we see it in cinema. As testing wore on, it became |
|
449 evident that not only did parsing everything out this way strengthen the |
|
450 ?communal language? effect of the system, but also it streamlined the |
|
451 play itself unobtrusively. |
|
452 |
|
453 The other thing we added to de-emphasize the ?who attacks first...? |
|
454 effect was to institute a running ?who has the advantage? mechanic. You |
|
455 know, the ?Robin Hood is higher on the stairs, but the Sheriff, who is |
|
456 better with the blade, can still press his attack upward? kind of stuff. |
|
457 Together this allowed us to abandon a lot of the complexity of more |
|
458 mechanical systems without sacrificing combat?s value in the narrative. |
|
459 (As a student of game theory, I appreciate the interplay between chosen |
|
460 actions and their effect on ?advantage,? making tactics a two-leveled |
|
461 process.) |
|
462 |
|
463 Quote |
|
464 It's a really big deal and - in my opinion - even more fundamental than |
|
465 DFK. The four categories obviously are integrated in many ways with |
|
466 conflict vs. task resolution |
|
467 |
|
468 I think this is another one of those, ?without focus, a game dies on |
|
469 this ground? issues and heartily agree. I, for one, am curious whether |
|
470 anyone else made this sort of thing more explicit in their games. |
|
471 |
|
472 I believe this kind of communal unspoken agreement stuff underpins a |
|
473 great deal of role-playing gaming yet receives almost no discussion. |
|
474 |
|
475 Fang Langford |
|
476 Logged |
|
477 |
|
478 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
479 Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing |
|
480 Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have |
|
481 any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he |
|
482 can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com |
|
483 <mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com> |
|
484 |
|
485 *Ron Edwards |
|
486 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>* |
|
487 Global Moderator |
|
488 Member |
|
489 * |
|
490 Posts: 12610 |
|
491 |
|
492 |
|
493 View Profile |
|
494 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW |
|
495 <http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com> |
|
496 |
|
497 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7083#msg7083> |
|
498 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
499 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7083#msg7083>* |
|
500 « *Reply #6 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:28:00 PM » |
|
501 |
|
502 |
|
503 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
504 Fang, |
|
505 |
|
506 Quotin' you for emphasis: |
|
507 "I believe this kind of communal unspoken agreement stuff underpins a |
|
508 great deal of role-playing gaming yet receives almost no discussion." |
|
509 |
|
510 Exactly. I've been chafing for over two years to get to this level of |
|
511 discussion, yet until now have been tripped up by the continual need to |
|
512 clarify GNS. With any luck, that stage is over. |
|
513 |
|
514 Best, |
|
515 Ron |
|
516 |
|
517 P.S. Editing this personal note in: I didn't find the Sun & Storm |
|
518 (backwards-announce, forwards-resolve) anything as aggravating as the |
|
519 perpetually saved action. Or worse, the play-tactic that shifted |
|
520 announcements up and down the Intent/ Initiation/ Completion/ Result |
|
521 spectrum as the player or GM saw fit, from action to action. |
|
522 |
|
523 [ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-24 10:01 ] |
|
524 Logged |
|
525 |
|
526 *Laurel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216>* |
|
527 Member |
|
528 |
|
529 Posts: 243 |
|
530 |
|
531 |
|
532 View Profile |
|
533 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216> WWW |
|
534 <http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/white_wolf_games> |
|
535 |
|
536 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7125#msg7125> |
|
537 *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) |
|
538 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7125#msg7125>* |
|
539 « *Reply #7 on:* October 24, 2001, 12:52:00 PM » |
|
540 |
|
541 |
|
542 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
543 Fang- |
|
544 |
|
545 Quote |
|
546 |
|
547 The other thing we added to de-emphasize the ?who attacks first...? |
|
548 effect was to institute a running ?who has the advantage? mechanic. |
|
549 Together this allowed us to abandon a lot of the complexity of more |
|
550 mechanical systems without sacrificing combat?s value in the narrative. |
|
551 |
|
552 |
|
553 Thanks for going through Scattershot's mechanics in such detail- that |
|
554 helped me a whole lot at least. I think I will experiment with |
|
555 something similar. The idea of acknowledging and utilizing combat |
|
556 advantages as something beyond a high dex or fortunate initiative roll |
|
557 makes so much sense to me. |
|
558 |
|
559 Ron- |
|
560 Thank you, that makes sense. Its a drawn out renegotiatory process of |
|
561 players attempting to discern the best possible tactical advantage for |
|
562 character action that I think is very disruptive to Narrative play and |
|
563 not a general metagame presence. I appreciate you helping me define |
|
564 what I was talking about. :smile: |
|
565 Logged |
|
566 |
|
567 *Pages:* [*1*] Print |
|
568 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=774.0> |
|
569 |
|
570 « previous |
|
571 <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.0;prev_next=prev> |
|
572 next » <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774;prev_next=next> |
|
573 |
|
574 Jump to: |
|
575 |
|
576 |
|
577 Powered by MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/> Powered by PHP |
|
578 <http://www.php.net/> The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 |
|
579 <http://www.simplemachines.org/>. |
|
580 © 2001-2005, Lewis Media <http://www.lewismedia.com/>. All Rights Reserved. |
|
581 *Oxygen* design by Bloc <http://www.bloczone.net> Valid XHTML 1.0! |
|
582 <http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> Valid CSS! |
|
583 <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer> |
|
584 |