[svn] r2449@freebird: fabien | 2007-04-24 15:19:05 -0400
Ajout de recompense.xml.
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>