--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/draft/IICE.txt Wed Aug 30 21:32:44 2006 -0400
@@ -0,0 +1,584 @@
+About the Forge </about/> | Articles </articles/> | Forum </forum/> |
+Reviews </reviews/> | Resource Library </resources/>
+
+*198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * -
+kuljek
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=6115>* Most
+online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006,
+03:03:12 PM)
+
++ *The Forge <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php>*
+|-+ *General Forge Forums <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php#1>*
+| |-+ *GNS Model Discussion
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0>*
+| | |-+ *The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.0>* « previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.0;prev_next=prev>
+next » <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774;prev_next=next>
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=774.0>
+
+Author Topic: The 4 steps of action (for Ron) (Read 2589 times)
+
+*Manu <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=223>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 55
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=223>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6701#msg6701>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6701#msg6701>*
+« * on:* October 18, 2001, 11:55:00 AM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hey again,
+
+you mention these four steps in any action: Intention, Initiation,
+Completion and Effect; could you again provide some examples of what you
+were thinking about? Thank you - great essay by the way :smile:
+ Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+-------------
+Manu
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6793#msg6793>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg6793#msg6793>*
+« *Reply #1 on:* October 19, 2001, 08:52:00 AM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hey Manu,
+
+Whoo doggies ... can I ask a favor and sort of belay this one for a
+while? What with Scenes and Tasks and Gamism and Audience and all that,
+it's pretty thick at the moment.
+
+This topic is a BIIIG deal and I think we can probably move it to the
+Design forum. How about in a couple days?
+
+Best,
+Ron
+ Logged
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7044#msg7044>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7044#msg7044>*
+« *Reply #2 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:44:00 AM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Hi Manu,
+
+I'm finally ready to address the issues in this post, but believe me,
+it's a biggie. I hope we get somewhere ?
+
+Let's consider an event that is established through role-playing as
+"happened" in the game-world. I look back over last night's game, and I
+can say, "Sebastian killed the ogre."
+
+Now you and I know that Sam (the player) and the rest of the people he
+played with had to do SOMETHING to establish that. Dice and whatnot may
+have been involved, but ultimately, it was social and verbal. Sam had to
+propose something and through whatever mechanism, everyone else came to
+agree with it and how it came to pass.
+
+The topic at hand is not the DFK mechanisms involved (not initially
+anyway), but rather the communication among the role-players (GM,
+players alike) to establish the event. I am talking about whatever Sam
+and anyone else SAID during that process.
+
+OK, during play, here we are, and Sam is playing Sebastian, and there's
+the big evil ogre. Sam says, "I attack him!"
+
+What the hell did Sam just establish in the imaginative game-world?
+Depending on the game system and/or the group, it could have been any of
+the following.
+
+Intention: Sam has announced Sebastian's intention, but in the
+game-world, Sebastian has not yet moved or done anything. That must wait
+upon some other step of the process.
+
+Initiation: Sebastian has officially moved into action; his sword is
+raised, he is moving and grimacing and so on.
+
+Completion: Sebastian has completed his sword stroke; the action, for
+all purposes, is finished.
+
+Effect: Sebastian's sword-stroke has produced its consequences and we
+have established just what has happened to the ogre and to Sebastian.
+
+In actual role-playing, I have seen EVERY one of these categories as an
+interpretation of Sam's statement.
+
+For a role-playing situation to be functional at the most basic level,
+the group as a whole must know and agree upon which one it is. I think
+that most of us are aware how jarring, disruptive, and plain Not Fun it
+is, when people at the role-playing table are disagreeing about which of
+the four categories is being established by an announced action.
+
+"But I said it!" is the issue. What, in fact, did you say? Intent,
+Initiation, Completion, or Effect?
+
+Game designs vary in the extent to which they either ESTABLISH or ASSUME
+the status of Sam's announcement in regard to the four categories.
+
+By far and away, the most common solution is to break down the
+game-world causality into linear form.
+1) Establish order of actions among all participants. Each character may
+now be considered "frozen" in the beginning of the sequence.
+2) Resolve the action of the first participant in terms of (a)
+unfreezing, such that the action may now be announced in full by the
+player; (b) motions of the character from initiation through completion
+through result.
+3) Continue through all characters.
+
+Please note that this paradigm exists with or without Fortune playing a
+role. In Champions, step 1 is fixed by Speed and Dexterity, whereas in
+other games each round requires a new Initiative determination (e.g.
+roll). In still others, the order is purely metagame in terms of "go
+around to the left" or something like that. For purposes of the present
+topic, this distinction does not matter.
+
+Several tweaks of this paradigm exist. They include:
+- "Saved" actions - explicitly permitting characters to reserve their
+actions past the point of order, to use as an "interrupt" prior to
+another, subsequent character's action.
+- Formalizing and fixing the announcements of actions prior to step two.
+E.g. in Sun & Storm, the characters' actions are announced in order of
+slowest-to-fastest between steps 1 and 2, and then resolved in order of
+fastest-to-slowest in step 2 as normal.
+- Assigning point-costs to actions such that one may manage a resource
+to distribute one's moments of action through the round (example: Shot
+Costs in Feng Shui).
+
+I suggest that this approach to the problem is functional, but it does
+have its limitations. For instance, the "saved" modification tends to
+result in everyone announcing "I save" and then playing
+multiple-interrupts on each other during each person's action. Or, some
+people dislike the "freeze" effect generated in the imagination.
+
+However, this paradigm is not the only one. Another is essentially
+"laissez-faire" for actions, in which everyone is expected to agree
+about the order informally, which in practice usually means the GM may
+rearrange who is going first and what happens when, for each series of
+actions in a group situation. The Window operates in this fashion,
+assuming that everyone's good faith is more reliable than a step-by-step
+method. In practice, this usually gives so much power to the GM that he
+or she may as well be writing the entire scene (especially insofar as
+many climactic scenes rely very heavily on the timing and sequence of
+actions).
+
+I have observed the laissez-faire method to founder on many occasions,
+due to confusions between the four categories. When Sam says, "I attack
+him," Sam and the GM and everyone else can be quite at odds about
+whether Sebastian is actually in motion or not. A subsequent
+announcement may influence Sam to say, "Um, actually I don't," or
+conversely, "But I'm already attacking him!" or anything in between. On
+the other hand, I am assured by many people that they prefer this
+method, and I can only assume that the group in question has informally
+worked out a standard for which category is being applied for a given
+announced action. I suspect that in these groups that Balance of Power
+heavily favors the GM.
+
+Finally, Zero introduced an novel solution - announced actions are ONLY
+Intent, and finalized as Initiation only at the end of a "free
+discussion" about them. The order of the actions are established
+simultaneously with the resolution of the actions (it's the same roll).
+Results of the actions are all then established in order. Sorcerer's
+group-resolution mechanic imitates that of Zero with minor differences.
+
+Another solution is found in Extreme Vengeance, in which order is fixed
+but adjustable due to metagame resources, and Hero Wars follows this lead.
+
+There are lots of other solutions or models as well, but none so
+consistently established across many games as the first two. If I'm
+leaving out your favorite, please don't have a cow about it; this post
+is long enough already.
+
+If anyone would like to add insight to this breakdown, or to disagree
+with it entirely, or otherwise to give me some feedback about it, I'm
+very interested. It's a really big deal and - in my opinion - even more
+fundamental than DFK. The four categories obviously are integrated in
+many ways with conflict vs. task resolution, and I'd like to work out
+some of those relationships as well.
+
+Best,
+Ron
+ Logged
+
+*Laurel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 243
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216> WWW
+<http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/white_wolf_games>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7063#msg7063>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7063#msg7063>*
+« *Reply #3 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:19:00 AM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+I think IICE is brilliant, and its a game mechanic I'm working on this
+week for my own game. I want players to be able to state their
+character's Intent, and if the action seems possible but not absolutely
+assured, for them to pause long enough for a very quick fortune-based
+check.
+
+Regardless of the outcome of the check (success, failure, or
+catastrophe), I want players to proceed to the Initation without stating
+a new Intent, even if they know the action is going to fail and to
+role-play through to the Completion using a Director's stance to provide
+the elements that explain specifically why the action was successful or
+a failure. The Effect will be announced by the next player to pick up
+the narrative, as an introduction to their own Intent.
+
+What I'm stumbling over right now is the best mechanism for determining
+order of actions. My design goal is to minimalize disruptions to
+Narrative play, so that the story flows with as few meta-game
+interruptions as possible. The standard linear form of resolution (what
+Ron posted as step 1-3) required enormous quantities of meta-game
+interruption. I'm not saying this is bad, or bad for every game, but
+its something I'm trying to avoid without running smack into the
+organizational and coherency issues of freeform.
+ Logged
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7066#msg7066>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7066#msg7066>*
+« *Reply #4 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:42:00 AM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Actually, Laurel, I suggest that you're struggling with an impossible
+design goal here:
+
+"My design goal is to minimalize disruptions to Narrative play, so that
+the story flows with as few meta-game interruptions as possible."
+
+Narrativism relies on a very strong metagame presence, and I've found
+that, counter-intuitively, it HELPS the story flow by acknowledging it.
+
+I think the key issue, though, is "disruption" rather than metagame vs.
+in-game. The traditional/common method, for instance, LOOKS as if it's
+very logical, but if people change their actions at the last second, you
+have a whole renegotiatory process going on with every character at
+every action. It's that kind of disruption that I think CAN be avoided.
+
+Best,
+Ron
+ Logged
+
+*Le Joueur <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 1363
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=73> WWW
+<http://www.scattershotgames.com>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7078#msg7078>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7078#msg7078>*
+« *Reply #5 on:* October 23, 2001, 04:19:00 PM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Warning: system plug ahead.
+
+This simplifies very well, kudos to you Mr. Edwards.
+
+Quote
+Ron Edwards wrote:
+
+The topic at hand is...the communication among the role-players to
+establish the event...could have been any of the following.
+
+Intention: ...the game-world...has not yet moved or done anything. That
+must wait upon some other step of the process.
+
+Initiation: ...moved into action...
+
+Completion: ...the action...is finished.
+
+Effect: ...has...established just what has happened...
+
+Very well conceived! (Just one small quibble, since I would include
+what happens between the initiation and completion of an action - the
+act itself ? in with the second group, I might call it Action, as it
+?caught in the act.?)
+
+Quote
+In actual role-playing, I have seen EVERY one of these categories as an
+interpretation of Sam's statement.
+
+For a role-playing situation to be functional at the most basic level,
+the group as a whole must know and agree upon which one it is. I think
+that most of us are aware how jarring, disruptive, and plain Not Fun it
+is, when people at the role-playing table are disagreeing about which of
+the four categories is being established by an announced action.
+
+You have that right. We felt so too when creating Scattershot; in fact
+we felt that our mechanics had to first act as a communal language, thus
+such concepts had to be explicitly delineated in the text.
+
+Quote
+By far and away, the most common solution is to break down the
+game-world causality into linear form.
+1) Establish order of actions among all participants. Each character may
+now be considered "frozen" in the beginning of the sequence.
+2) Resolve the action of the first participant in terms of (a)
+unfreezing, such that the action may now be announced in full by the
+player; (b) motions of the character from initiation through completion
+through result.
+3) Continue through all characters.
+
+This is too true amongst traditional games. And as you point out leads
+to many confusing situations. I originally found that ?initiative
+rolls? seemed to be a mechanism to collapse many ?intangibles? about
+what can or cannot affect who makes the first (nigh?) successful attack
+in a combat. To that I said, "Why skip the role-playing?"
+
+What eventually resulted (mostly because I was lazy in my analysis of
+the many varied systems out there) was stripping out such mechanics
+entirely. As a game of Scattershot proceeds, when anyone does anything
+that raises the tension level to a degree that, in all fairness, more
+detail is needed to parse out, ?rounds? begin. And they begin with that
+participant?s character. It need not be anything traditionally thought
+of as melee (owing largely to my feeling that violent aggression need
+not always come to blows), just anything that creates the narrative
+atmosphere the [i]can[/] result in a fight.
+
+I take a page from so many gunslinger movies where, to me, the battle
+begins with an insult, tossed drink, or silent response (with the
+villain seemingly tempting the hero to ?make the first move?). Not only
+did all ?statements? in Scattershot?s combat need to be ?initiations,?
+all statements had to be, certainly because any of them could shift play
+into combat-turn-sequencing. (Heck, ?regular? play is described as
+loosely following this sequencing anyway; combat?s need for impartiality
+simply makes it more structured.)
+
+Quote
+- Formalizing and fixing the announcements of actions prior to step two.
+E.g. in Sun & Storm, the characters' actions are announced in order of
+slowest-to-fastest between steps 1 and 2, and then resolved in order of
+fastest-to-slowest in step 2 as normal.
+
+As an aside, for all my bad experiences with role-playing gaming, this
+is the style whose author I most wish to go back in time and strangle in
+their crib.
+
+Quote
+On the subject of 'saved actions:?
+
+I suggest that this approach to the problem is functional, but it does
+have its limitations. For instance, the "saved" modification tends to
+result in everyone announcing "I save" and then playing
+multiple-interrupts on each other during each person's action. Or, some
+people dislike the "freeze" effect generated in the imagination.
+
+I saw that too. In Scattershot, saved actions must have explicit
+?activation? conditions and are lost when play comes back to the player.
+ Likewise, combined with actions that do not weigh upon a character?s
+combat, Scattershot combat can take on an air of that tense circling I
+am fond of in cinema.
+
+For Scattershot we decided to scrap all the complexity of turn ordering
+mechanics in favor of a clear and simple ?counter-clockwise around the
+table? system. To make up for things reflected by those rules, we took
+note from the game theory premise it seemed to be founded on: ?they who
+attack first, have the advantage.? This might be important where
+decisive blows can be easily had, but since this was not the case, we
+let the above, ?whoever initiated goes first? rule determine combat (in
+playtest, we found that this gives the desired level of cinema to our
+system).
+
+The effect this had was to place more focus on the role-playing aspect
+of the game. In tense scenes it could really be important who
+?initiated? as we see it in cinema. As testing wore on, it became
+evident that not only did parsing everything out this way strengthen the
+?communal language? effect of the system, but also it streamlined the
+play itself unobtrusively.
+
+The other thing we added to de-emphasize the ?who attacks first...?
+effect was to institute a running ?who has the advantage? mechanic. You
+know, the ?Robin Hood is higher on the stairs, but the Sheriff, who is
+better with the blade, can still press his attack upward? kind of stuff.
+ Together this allowed us to abandon a lot of the complexity of more
+mechanical systems without sacrificing combat?s value in the narrative.
+ (As a student of game theory, I appreciate the interplay between chosen
+actions and their effect on ?advantage,? making tactics a two-leveled
+process.)
+
+Quote
+It's a really big deal and - in my opinion - even more fundamental than
+DFK. The four categories obviously are integrated in many ways with
+conflict vs. task resolution
+
+I think this is another one of those, ?without focus, a game dies on
+this ground? issues and heartily agree. I, for one, am curious whether
+anyone else made this sort of thing more explicit in their games.
+
+I believe this kind of communal unspoken agreement stuff underpins a
+great deal of role-playing gaming yet receives almost no discussion.
+
+Fang Langford
+ Logged
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang Langford is formerly the creator of the Scattershot Role-Playing
+Game System. This project has been permanently suspended. If you have
+any questions regarding the implementation of it or anything else, he
+can be reached at ripjack@mad.scientist.com
+<mailto:ripjack@mad.scientist.com>
+
+*Ron Edwards
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9>*
+Global Moderator
+Member
+*
+Posts: 12610
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=9> WWW
+<http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7083#msg7083>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7083#msg7083>*
+« *Reply #6 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:28:00 PM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang,
+
+Quotin' you for emphasis:
+"I believe this kind of communal unspoken agreement stuff underpins a
+great deal of role-playing gaming yet receives almost no discussion."
+
+Exactly. I've been chafing for over two years to get to this level of
+discussion, yet until now have been tripped up by the continual need to
+clarify GNS. With any luck, that stage is over.
+
+Best,
+Ron
+
+P.S. Editing this personal note in: I didn't find the Sun & Storm
+(backwards-announce, forwards-resolve) anything as aggravating as the
+perpetually saved action. Or worse, the play-tactic that shifted
+announcements up and down the Intent/ Initiation/ Completion/ Result
+spectrum as the player or GM saw fit, from action to action.
+
+[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-10-24 10:01 ]
+ Logged
+
+*Laurel <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216>*
+Member
+
+Posts: 243
+
+
+View Profile
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=216> WWW
+<http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/white_wolf_games>
+
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7125#msg7125>
+*The 4 steps of action (for Ron)
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.msg7125#msg7125>*
+« *Reply #7 on:* October 24, 2001, 12:52:00 PM »
+
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+Fang-
+
+Quote
+
+ The other thing we added to de-emphasize the ?who attacks first...?
+effect was to institute a running ?who has the advantage? mechanic.
+ Together this allowed us to abandon a lot of the complexity of more
+mechanical systems without sacrificing combat?s value in the narrative.
+
+
+Thanks for going through Scattershot's mechanics in such detail- that
+helped me a whole lot at least. I think I will experiment with
+something similar. The idea of acknowledging and utilizing combat
+advantages as something beyond a high dex or fortunate initiative roll
+makes so much sense to me.
+
+Ron-
+Thank you, that makes sense. Its a drawn out renegotiatory process of
+players attempting to discern the best possible tactical advantage for
+character action that I think is very disruptive to Narrative play and
+not a general metagame presence. I appreciate you helping me define
+what I was talking about. :smile:
+ Logged
+
+*Pages:* [*1*] Print
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=774.0>
+
+« previous
+<http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774.0;prev_next=prev>
+next » <http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=774;prev_next=next>
+
+Jump to:
+
+
+Powered by MySQL <http://www.mysql.com/> Powered by PHP
+<http://www.php.net/> The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5
+<http://www.simplemachines.org/>.
+© 2001-2005, Lewis Media <http://www.lewismedia.com/>. All Rights Reserved.
+*Oxygen* design by Bloc <http://www.bloczone.net> Valid XHTML 1.0!
+<http://validator.w3.org/check/referer> Valid CSS!
+<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer>
+