..
Logan,
IIEC refers to intent, initiation, execution, and completion; it's a followup on one of the "talk about it later" topics in my essay. The thread, begun by Manu, is
here.
A related thread, a similar followup and also begun by Manu, concerns task/conflict resolution and similar stuff,
here.
Best,
Ron
Yoicks!
Looking over the history of the discussion, I discover a terminological shift!
It was, intent, initiation, completion, and effect; now, for some reason I and others have been calling it intent, initiation, execution, and completion!
Damn! I call a terminology conference. I like the "execution" part for step 3 (I think Fang commented about how "completion" was too, well "over with" to be just right). I also think "effect" or "result" or "outcome" would be right for the last step.
So, IIEE? IIER? IIEO? Damn! All comments welcome.
Best,
Ron
I was going to guess IIEC was acronym-speak for "If I Even Care" . . .
I like Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect - double-I, double-E. IIEO ("Outcome" at the end) works too, but makes me want to turn it into EIEIO. :-)
Hey,
I think Outcome is probably more precise than Effect, in that it eliminates any hidden Narrativist bias toward resolution systems that always move the narrative along, always produce an effect. In some games, the Outcome is "no effect".
Paul
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIt was, intent, initiation, completion, and effect; now, for some reason I and others have been calling it intent, initiation, execution, and completion!
Damn! I call a terminology conference. I like the "execution" part for step 3 (I think Fang commented about how "completion" was too, well "over with" to be just right). I also think "effect" or "result" or "outcome" would be right for the last step.
So, IIEE? IIER? IIEO? Damn! All comments welcome.
I always prefered IIAC: Intent, Initiation, Action, Completion.
Fang Langford
I root for IIEOC (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Outcome, Consequence).
I choose to separate Outcome (the localized impact of the action) from Consequences (the big picture); Let's say it's all about swinging a swort at a troll: O would be the possible wound to it, and C would be the impact on its morale, and maybe on the morale of surroundings goblins.
Another example: a character tries to seduce a noble lady: O would be the efect of the smooth talker on the lady, and her reaction to it, and C would be the triggered consequences on the Relationship Map surrounding her.
Note that in both cases, the action might have been initiated with the initial intent of reaching the goal of C, and O is just a "side effect". Narrativist gamegroups might have a field day with this kind of way to look at things, and I even see it in Ron's Elfs, personally. (palyer's action as O, and character's action as C)
Just my 2 cents.
Manu