diff -r 3164c82ac16e -r bdef1afd1170 draft/IICE.txt --- /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 | Articles | Forum | +Reviews | Resource Library + +*198791* Posts in *18708* Topics by *5988* Members Latest Member: * - +kuljek +* Most +online today: *113* - most online ever: *271* (February 22, 2006, +03:03:12 PM) + ++ *The Forge * +|-+ *General Forge Forums * +| |-+ *GNS Model Discussion +* +| | |-+ *The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* Ť previous + +next ť + +*Pages:* [*1*] Print + + +Author Topic: The 4 steps of action (for Ron) (Read 2589 times) + +*Manu * +Member + +Posts: 55 + + +View Profile + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť * on:* October 18, 2001, 11:55:00 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť *Reply #1 on:* October 19, 2001, 08:52:00 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť *Reply #2 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:44:00 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 * +Member + +Posts: 243 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť *Reply #3 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:19:00 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť *Reply #4 on:* October 23, 2001, 11:42:00 AM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 * +Member + +Posts: 1363 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť *Reply #5 on:* October 23, 2001, 04:19:00 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 + + +*Ron Edwards +* +Global Moderator +Member +* +Posts: 12610 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť *Reply #6 on:* October 23, 2001, 08:28:00 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 * +Member + +Posts: 243 + + +View Profile + WWW + + + +*The 4 steps of action (for Ron) +* +Ť *Reply #7 on:* October 24, 2001, 12:52:00 PM ť + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +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 + + +Ť previous + +next ť + +Jump to: + + +Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP + The Forge | Powered by SMF 1.0.5 +. +Š 2001-2005, Lewis Media . All Rights Reserved. +*Oxygen* design by Bloc Valid XHTML 1.0! + Valid CSS! + +