The Forge Archives

I'll cut to the chase: I recently heard the opinion that IntCon meant zero GM Oomph.

I was further told that in addition to the types I already thought of as railroading, the three following types are also railroading:

* With Gamemaster oomph, Overt, Flexible, Consensual
* With Gamemaster oomph, Covert, not Flexible, Consensual
* With Gamemaster oomph, Covert, Flexible, Non-Consensual[/list:u]
To me these definitions feel highly unorthodox, to say the least. But I might have misunderstood everything from the start.

Comments anyone? Is this what IntCon and Railroading really means or is my doubts of the orthodoxy of these interpretations shared by others?

Quote from: Pale FireI'll cut to the chase: I recently heard the opinion that IntCon meant zero GM Oomph.

Yeah, I can be a real ass sometimes.

In essence, I was arguing that since nothing in Intuitive Continuity predicates a story, created by whoever, that (barring Illusionist play) it was most like 'pinball Simulationism' in that it didn't include Gamemaster Oomph in its explanation (for or against it).  Illusionism is now defined by the presence of Gamemaster Oomph (and Covertness), thus I suggested that these two styles aren't the same.

Illusionism isn't Intuitive Continuity and Intuitive Continuity isn't Illusionism.  I'd be happy to engage in discussion about whether the two are relevant to each other, but I'm pretty sure one is not completely bounded within the other.

Quote from: Pale FireI was further told that, in addition to the types I already thought of as railroading, the three following types are also railroading:[list=a]

• With Gamemaster oomph, Overt, Flexible, Consensual
  
• With Gamemaster oomph, Covert, not Flexible, Consensual
  
• With Gamemaster oomph, Covert, Flexible, Non-Consensual[/list:o]To me these definitions feel highly unorthodox, to say the least. But I might have misunderstood everything from the start.
  

This set of choices stems from the realization that Gamemaster Oomph sounds exactly like what we were blindly flailing at way back in Is 'Railroading' a Useful Term (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1349&highlight=railroading).

It seems that Gamemaster Oomph is 'railroading without the stigma,' because in 'a,' it is railroading simply by someone else controlling your character, taking you 'where they want to go,' right down the railroad.  More so with 'b' because, whether you know it or not, you go where the gamemaster takes you, inflexibly.  Ron has indicates 'c' is also once 'outed,' "When...the social contract...is broken regarding this issue [Consensual], then we're into railroading."

Christoffer does me a disservice when he doesn't include his counter argument that all four are necessary; railroading is 'with Gamemaster Oomph, Overt, not Flexible, and Non-Consensual.'  I might entertain that you need three of four or only one, but this all or nothing approach seemed wrong.

Quote from: Pale FireComments anyone? Is this what IntCon and Railroading really means or is my doubts of the orthodoxy of these interpretations shared by others?

Personally, I don't see how Intuitive Continuity couldn't be used for a 'pinball Simulationist' game, therefore where is the need for Gamemaster Oomph?  Illusionism is defined as requiring that.  Like I said, there is possibly some overlap, but one simply isn't the same as the other.

Fang Langford

My understanding of "pinball Sim" is that the term refers to play in which events in the game world march on even when the players aren't looking at them, and the players can interact with as few or as many pieces of the world as they choose. That's not IntCon.

Quote from: Seth L. BlumbergMy understanding of "pinball Sim" is that the term refers to play in which events in the game world march on even when the players aren't looking at them, and the players can interact with as few or as many pieces of the world as they choose. That's not IntCon.

Are you saying that you can't support a "pinball Simulationist" game with Intuitive Continuity?  I was under the impression that it was the other way around, that the world was static, like a pinball machine, and the players just bounced around however they liked uncontrolably; "Exploration of Setting" style.  Granted that the gamemaster hasn't prepared much (I don't see preparation in the description of "pinball Simulationism"), why couldn't Intuitive Continuity be the method employed?

Referee?  Can we get a definition of "pinball Simulationism?"

Fang Langford

The way I see it, you can use reality-in-flux techniques to do pinball sim or to do intCon, but you can't be doing both at once.

The whole point of pinball sim is that the world is indifferent to the player-characters. It reacts to them through physical causality and through NPC behavior, but it doesn't react to anything metagame, such as the players' interests or desires. IntCon is exactly to the contrary. The world not only gets invented on the fly, it gets shaped to better fit what the players want to accomplish or get involved in story-wise.

Upon learning that the player-characters are desperately in need of dilithium crystals and are changing course to visit the planet Beta Gemini Prime to search for them, knowing that no details of the planet have been invented yet, true pinball sim would require the GM to follow the same procedures for deciding whether or not the planet has dilithium crystals that he would have followed if the players weren't looking for them. An intCon GM would likely decide that there were dilithium crystals there, but that they were jealously guarded as sacred relics by green-skinned babes who worship a cranky ancient computer.

Bottom line is, reality-in-flux without GM-oomph is one way (not the only way) to do pinball sim. (And is not Illusionism because of the lack of GM-oomph.) Reality-in-flux with GM-oomph is intCon. (And is probably Illusionism, unless the process of making GM decisions about the world-in-flux is somehow made overt.)

- Walt

Walt has it.

Pinball Sim is:

No Force (GM Oomph)

and

Inflexible

I don't see the overt/covert, or consensual/non-consensual refering to any sort of non-Forceful play. Sure you could hide that you aren't controling things, but why would you? And being Overt, the objection would be instant: "Why aren't you manipulating things behind the scenes to make a better game!"  ;-)

There's lots of room for talk of non-Forceful styles. But IntCon is not one of them. If the players are not manipulating things to create story (Narrativism) and the GM is not (Illusionism), then getting a story from this would be "The Impossible Thing".

I think Skarka clearly means to imply the use of Illusionist endloading techniques, just like Walt implies.

Mike

P.S. Before I come under assault from the "Terminology Police" can we get a better term for this sort of play? I only put it out there as part of an analogy (that of the players being sentient balls in a pinball machine). Can we call it Objective Play? Or something like that?

Quote from: wfreitagThe way I see it, you can use reality-in-flux techniques to do pinball sim or to do intCon, but you can't be doing both at once.

The whole point of pinball sim is that the world is indifferent to the player-characters. It reacts to them through physical causality and through NPC behavior, but it doesn't react to anything metagame, such as the players' interests or desires. IntCon is exactly to the contrary. The world not only gets invented on the fly, it gets shaped to better fit what the players want to accomplish or get involved in story-wise.

...Bottom line is, reality-in-flux without GM-oomph is one way (not the only way) to do pinball sim. (And is not Illusionism because of the lack of GM-oomph.) Reality-in-flux with GM-oomph is intCon. (And is probably Illusionism, unless the process of making GM decisions about the world-in-flux is somehow made overt.)

Okay, I guess I'm the one who is confused.  I was under the impression that Reality-in-Flux was about making up detail to meet a number of needs, but specifically not because of 'what was already there.'

Let me see if I understand what you're saying; the whole point of Intuitive Continuity is that the world is 'cares about' the player-characters. It reacts to anything meta-game, such as the players' interests or desires, but it doesn't react to them through physical causality and through NPC behavior.  The game evolves to suit what the players are doing.  I've got that.

What I don't get is, where Reality-in-Flux comes into "pinball Simulationism."  Seth indicated that the world existed when the players weren't looking in "pinball Simulationism."  Isn't that the opposite of Reality-in-Flux?  Don't get me wrong, I was pretty sure until today, that you could do "pinball Simulationism" with Reality-in-Flux.

For those of you who haven't taken scrupulous notes, Mike gave us the term "pinball Simulationism."

Quote from: Orignally Mike HolmesIn pinball Sim, the GM has no particular plot, and may only have the sort of elements you see Ron suggest for Narrativist play. That is, you may have lots of NPCs, and Relationship Maps of a sort, and preset Bangs, but you have no idea how the story will go. The difference between Sim and Narr in this case is that there is no particular Premise being addressed, the players are simply enjoined to play their characters, as they encounter the world and the elements that the GM has prepared.

The reason that pinball is a good name is because play sort of then resembles playing pinball. The ball starts rolling, and nobody is quite sure where it's going to go. Like pinball, you can use your flippers and bump the machine a bit, which is like the player interaction, and the GM's additions, but in the end much of what happens is essentially random. The objective in this case is just to explore the included elements, and to observe the "series of interesting events" (or non-story) that may occur.

Seems to me this is what Illusionism is usually bent to emulate anyway.  The problem is I don't see how adding Gamemaster Oomph to Reality-in-Flux inherently makes it into Intuitive Continuity.

I really need a better description of Intuitive Continuity then yours (above) or Ron's "in which the GM uses the players’ interests and actions during initial play to construct the crises and actual content of later play. (This is a form of 'winging it' that may or may not become Roads to Rome.)"  Because I just don't see any Gamemaster Oomph in that.  I mean wouldn't using Gamemaster Oomph to "use players' interests, actions, or desires" be redundant?  ("Yer gonna get want you want, whether you want it or not!")

If anything, that suggests that the addition of Gamemaster Oomph to Reality-in-Flux would automatically turn it into Illusionism (unless the gamemaster is doing this Overtly).

I keep zeroing in on Intuitive Continuity 'caring about' the players' choices and Gamemaster Oomph being about being able to void them; these seem opposed to me.  How can you use players' interests and actions and void them occasionally; where does the priority ultimately lie?  What I don't buy is Ron's introduction of "during initial play."  All of the passages I've seen from Gareth-Michael Skarka indicate that at no time will the gamemaster stop 'using player interests and actions.'  Yours are the same.

Another question I have is, where did Reality-in-Flux come up?  I mean RiF not withstanding, all of what I have suggested is still the result of clear ratiocination.

I guess I'm trying to track down which reference I have wrong.  Because if you're using consistent "player's interests," I don't see any Gamemaster Oomph.  If there's no Gamemaster Oomph, I don't see Illusionism; if anything, I see potentially "pinball Simulationism."  (Certainly a lot of Simulationism can be had in the absence of Gamemaster Oomph, but I'm trying to stay with what has been presented.)

Let me simplify so I can understand it tomorrow when I read over it again:

• "Pinball Simulationism" has no Gamemaster Oomph because it lets players do whatever.
  
• Intuitive Continuity has no Gamemaster Oomph because it prioritizes whatever the players find interesting (over the long term).
  
• Illusionism has Gamemaster Oomph, plain and simple (and that's a priority) with a side order of Covertness or it's Participationism.
  
• If you use Covert techniques in Intuitive Continuity, you can emulate "pinball Simulationism."
  
• Illusionism can also use Covert techniques to emulate "pinball Simulationism."
  
• Reality-in-Flux is a Covert technique.
  • With Gamemaster Oomph, it is a tool for Illusionism.
    
  • Without Gamemaster Oomph, it is a tool for...Intuitive Continuity?
    
  • You're saying that RiF without Gamemaster Oomph supports "pinball Simulationism;" is that right?
    Therefore if RiF uses Gamemaster Oomph, it supports
    Intuitive Continuity?[/list:u]That doesn't seem right, shouldn't it support Illusionism instead?[/list:u]
  • I still don't understand how there is Gamemaster Oomph in Intuitive Continuity, do I?[/list:u]Fang Langford

Quote from: Mike HolmesThere's lots of room for talk of non-Forceful styles. But IntCon is not one of them. If the players are not manipulating things to create story (Narrativism) and the GM is not (Illusionism), then getting a story from this would be "The Impossible Thing".

I think Skarka clearly means to imply the use of Illusionist endloading techniques, just like Walt implies.

Okay, I think we're getting some where into this thick skull of mine.  Could someone please show me a reference where 'you get story' from Intuitive Continuity?  That's what I need to see (I don't have more than fragments of Skarka's).  I'm sure that'll clear up quite a bit for me.  I never thought of 'player Force' in this application before.

Please?  Pretty please?  With sugar on top?

Fang Langford

p. s. I cross-posted my last with Mike's.

Sorry, Fang. I don't think I can help you clear this up.

The problem is that there is, as I see it, a clear and simple answer to "Intuitive Continuity has no Gamemaster Oomph because it prioritizes whatever the players find interesting (over the long term)." Which is that it's still the GM using the interstices of the reality-in-flux to create the story (that is, create narrative qualities in the outcome), which is where the GM-oomph comes in. The players affect the outcome and also express their preferences for how the story should proceed (that is, what they find interesting) through the medium of their characters' actions.

Unfortunately, that's impossible.

So to hell with it.

- Walt

Here (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/design10.html) is Skarka's column I quoted from by the way Fang.

The relevant part comes as he is discussing types of guilds. For Divination he makes a detour to explain IntCon:

Quote from: Gareth-Michael SkarkaDivination is always a touchy subject in a roleplaying game, where future events are determined by a combination of player action and gamemaster planning. So, this type of magic would result in a Conductor having to give some details of future events (how much they give away would be a result of two things--one, how successful the reading was, and two, how much the event depends upon the actions of the players). IntConning is a useful skill for Conductors to learn here. Briefly: IntCon is short for INTuitive CONtinuity--the practice of coming up with last- minute plot devices or events that look as if they were intended all along!  There will be a discussion of IntConning in the Conductor's section of the UnderWorld rulebook, since it is a valuable skill that in my opinion too many games overlook. With an IntConned game, instead of a gamemaster coming up with a plot and running a group of players like lab rats from plot point to plot point, the gamemaster comes up with a brief outline, which he then alters in reaction to what the players do. (I know, this may not make much sense here--I'll cover it in more depth later).  This can apply to divination as follows: if the character performing the divination succeeds, the Conductor comes up with a "future prediction", based somewhat on his or her notes of where the story is going, but largely out of thin air. Keeping this in mind, it then becomes the Conductors job to drop in little bits of plot that lead up to the event, making it seem as though it was pre-destined (but without railroading the players--this is the most important part. NEVER railroad the players into a pre-determined plot).

[edit: Added the relevant quote so you don't need to click the link]

Hey Christoffer,

Quote from: Pale FireThis the relevant part which comes as he is discussing types of guilds. For Divination he makes a detour to explain IntCon [Trimmed by me]:

Quote from: Gareth-Michael SkarkaBriefly: IntCon is short for INTuitive CONtinuity--the practice of coming up with last-minute plot devices or events that look as if they were intended all along! ...With an IntConned game, instead of a gamemaster coming up with a plot and running a group of players like lab rats from plot point to plot point, the gamemaster comes up with a brief outline, which he then alters in reaction to what the players do.... (but without railroading the players--this is the most important part. NEVER railroad the players into a pre-determined plot).

I'll add:

Quote from: Gareth-Michael SkarkaIntuitive Continuity...the development of your own Story Arcs with little or no prior planning.  The planting of plot elements throughout the campaign that, in retrospect, will appear to make a unified whole...and yet began as mere improvisation on the part of the Conductor. There will be rules mechanics to assist this process.

Thanks for providing this, finally.  Reading through it, it still supports the idea that Intuitive Continuity is improvisation based on player input.  I have to guess that Mike is right, after all.

Quote from: Mike HolmesI think Skarka clearly means to imply the use of Illusionist end-loading techniques, just like Walt implies.

Skarka implies that he 'sows good seeds' and then 'reaps the results,' definitely retcon.  Back to Christoffer's initial question, that would mean there isn't any Gamemaster Oomph, no Force, no assumption of control over the player characters, just retconned plot elements becoming a story after the fact (or more likely, shortly before the end of the fact).

I disagree that he's using Illusionism in the new sense.  When he's "planting elements throughout the campaign," I don't think that has anything to do with taking over control over the player characters, now the definition of Gamemaster Oomph (or Force) which is required of Illusionism.  Retconning is very much what he's doing, but now not enough to rate being Illusionism alone.  Does this herald the return of the term Dramatism?  (Most often defined as retconning the game into story.)

I guess we're pretty much to the end of Christoffer's topic (unless he'd like redirect).  It still leaves me wondering what the relationship is between Force, Gamemaster Oomph, or taking control of the player characters, and railroading legitimized....

Fang Langford

Quote from: Le JoueurI disagree that he's using Illusionism in the new sense.  When he's "planting elements throughout the campaign," I don't think that has anything to do with taking over control over the player characters, now the definition of Gamemaster Oomph (or Force) which is required of Illusionism.  Retconning is very much what he's doing, but now not enough to rate being Illusionism alone.  Does this herald the return of the term Dramatism?  (Most often defined as retconning the game into story.)

Fang, you're definately reading something other into "GM Oomph" than I am.

What I think you're doing is saying that GM Oomph equals "the extent GM takes control of the game and drives the events". That's not what I'm reading into it at all.

I feel that mayb what you're reading as GM Oomph is what Ron labels "GM impact" here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4217&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15):

Quote from: Ron Edwards3) I think that "GM impact" is too generic a way to look at my #1; in the later parts of my post, when I say "GM impact," I'm referring to the specific kind of impact listed in my description of variable #1 - which is to say, the actual GM- influence (control) over the player-character's important decisions.

Maybe Ron could give us his thoughts?

Quote from: Pale Fire

Quote from: Le JoueurI disagree that he's using Illusionism in the new sense.  When he's "planting elements throughout the campaign," I don't think that has anything to do with taking over control over the player characters, now the definition of Gamemaster Oomph (or Force) which is required of Illusionism.  Retconning is very much what he's doing, but now not enough to rate being Illusionism alone.  Does this herald the return of the term Dramatism?  (Most often defined as retconning the game into story.)

Fang, you're definately reading something other into "GM Oomph" than I am.

What I think you're doing is saying that GM Oomph equals "the extent GM takes control of the game and drives the events". That's not what I'm reading into it at all.

I think not, reread what I emboldened.  Saying that it is only as far as the 'story impacting decisions' in a method of gaming that only deals in 'story impact' is redundant.  I'm not going to explain it again.

Fang Langford

When was GM Oomph defined as taking over control of the player characters? There is a difference between being able to take control and doing it all of the time. Maybe it's my poor english, but "taking over" sounds an awfully lot like you are thinking about the latter only.

My impression of GM Oomph is that is defines the extent to which the GM is able to override game and player decisions. It doesn't say anything about how often this is done, or to what purpose the override is used.

Quote from: Pale FireWhen was GM Oomph defined as taking over control of the player characters? There is a difference between being able to take control and doing it all of the time....

Which is trivial at best compared to not allowing it at all.

Follow, being able to override a player at any time means the players are never safe in their decisions (whether they know it or not) and play is profoundly affected by that possibility.  'How often' or 'how much' isn't even important when it can happen at any time; this is probably even more obvious when you consider how different it is when this tradition is broken and no gamemaster override is allowed.  (Basically, games have quibbled over 'how much' for so long that few realize the vast differences between this and not at all.)

Conversely, if there is no possibility of player-override whatsoever, it is radically different.  Thus a graph like this:

Never <---a---> Any Time <---b---> All the Time[/list:u]Now where would one divide two significantly different types of games, 'a' or 'b?'  It should be obvious to all reading that I consider games on the right of 'b' to be virtually non-existent.  Thus 'a' is the only worthwhile divider and I think it an obviously profound one.

Quote from: Pale FireMy impression of GM Oomph is that [it] defines the extent to which the GM is able to override game and player decisions.  It doesn't say anything about how often this is done, or to what purpose the override is used.

Here is how Ron defined Gamemaster Oomph, "how much influence the GM has influence over story-impacting decisions made by the player-characters."  Clearly, either the gamemaster has some or he has doesn't.  I say that however you look at it the 'a' division is the only major distinction; simply giving the gamemaster 'the keys' means nothing in the 'kingdom' is ever safe.

I know we've got over twenty-five years of games that give this ability to the gamemaster without question and without thinking, but that's no call to ignore the left side of 'a' or the profound difference it offers.  And just to be clear, I'm saying the difference between 'none at all' and 'some of the time' is so profound it dwarfs 'how often' and 'how much' to little more than trivialities.

Nit-picking over 'how often,' 'to what degree,' or 'in what fashion,' is something designers have been doing for decades, and for what?  Rarely (until recently) do you see them 'take a step back' and realize that there is another possibility, one whose differences are obvious and profound.  Certainly, 'zero tolerance' of gamemaster Oomph is a hard to aspire to for a traditional-bound bunch like us, but doing so changes a lot of assumptions many designer don't realize they have.  To me, that is the real difference between Gamemaster Oomph or not.

My impression is that you can't imagine a game without some degree of Gamemaster Oomph.  In my eyes, that leaves you thinking that ultimately all gaming is Illusionism to some degree and that some games are simply 'more honest' about it.

To which I say rubbish.

Fang Langford

p. s. For the record, there are huge differences between "overriding the game" and "overriding the player."  If you can't differentiate between those, the above is probably pointless.

You're reading way too much into Force (oomph). It's not about contramanding Player decisions so much as it is control of the events that occur.

And remember that this term is within the context of the Illusionism discussion. That is, GM ability to affect the world has no place in this discussion other than it refers to the GMs ability to control the plot. If I create a creature called a Boondoggle just for kicks, and I do not intend for it to affect the plot in any way, that is not Force. Force, is doing something like listening to the player's choice of rout at the fork in the road, and having it automatically taking them to the adventure. There must be intent on the part of the GM to make it Force.

So, no, this does not happen in all styles of gaming. Far from it. Although most GMs use some Force, some of the time. In some games it would be considered cheating, however. And some just don't like it for whatever reason. So, no, Force is not universal. Far from it.

I find myself oddly enough agreeing with Christoffer here.

That said, one can read the Planting Seeds part as definitely non-Illusionist. As long as the players are really free to ignore the seeds, then this particular technique is not Forceful. But you'll find GMs will even do subtle things like ensuring that the seeds pop up repeatedly and the like to get them to grow. As soon as that happens, IntCon becomes Illusionism. In any case, remember that if the players are grabbing onto these seeds because they are thematically interesting, then they are playing Narrativist.

What IntCon does not define is what the purpose of such play is exactly. Is it designed to produce Narrativist play? Sim play? Some combination? In the latter case, that would be, what should be call it...El Dorado?

This is the problem. Skarka isn't on the same page, and as such, his techniques could be used for all sorts of things.

Illusionism specifically states that the desired outcome is Sim play from the players (at least to an extent). As such, IntCon used to go Sim is Illusionist. I suggest that this is probably what Skarka is looking for, because what other goal is worth all the rigamarole?

Mike

P.S. If Mr. Skarka is reading, would you like to comment. I would like to know if I'm abusing your theory in any way.

Hey Mike,

By George, I think you've done it!

Quote from: Mike HolmesYou're reading way too much into Force (oomph). It's not about contramanding Player decisions so much as it is control of the events that occur.

More like 'overstating' what I read, but I take your meaning.  And it was what I was actually trying to say; only you've said it much better.

Quote from: Mike HolmesAnd remember that this term is within the context of the Illusionism discussion....  Force, is doing something like listening to the player's choice of route at the fork in the road, and having it automatically taking them to the adventure. There must be intent on the part of the GM to make it Force.

So, no, this does not happen in all styles of gaming. Far from it. Although most GMs use some Force, some of the time. In some games it would be considered cheating, however. And some just don't like it for whatever reason. So, no, Force is not universal. Far from it.

I wasn't very clear.  My understanding now is that both Illusionism and IntCon are both about creating 'story.'  However my point still stands, there are forms of gaming (with 'story') where the gamemaster is offered no Force usage.  Like perhaps some high-player-input Narrativism?

And in these terms, I'm arguing that there are 'story-conscious' games where the gamemaster is allowed no Force at all and that that is markedly different from those that expect, condone, or even just allow the use of Force.  So different in fact, that I still see the difference between a little Force and a lot, as trivial.

Christoffer's problem with my poorly worded take on 'none or some' Force, matters little on whether IntCon is Illusionism or not.  Don't you agree?

Quote from: Mike HolmesThat said, one can read the Planting Seeds part as definitely non-Illusionist. As long as the players are really free to ignore the seeds, then this particular technique is not Forceful. But you'll find GMs will even do subtle things like ensuring that the seeds pop up repeatedly and the like to get them to grow. As soon as that happens, IntCon becomes Illusionism. In any case, remember that if the players are grabbing onto these seeds because they are thematically interesting, then they are playing Narrativist.

What IntCon does not define is what the purpose of such play is exactly. Is it designed to produce Narrativist play? Sim play? Some combination?

That's what leads us back to my original assertion, the one I made in Private Messages that got Christoffer so up in arms.  You make it clear that IntCon either has or doesn't have Force.  When it has, it is clearly Illusionism.  Then what I said ("I was arguing...that (barring Illusionist play) it was most like 'pinball Simulationism' in that it didn't include Gamemaster Oomph in its explanation (for or against it).") still holds (with a new addendum that it could also be Narrativism; I hadn't accounted for 'story orientation' back there).  Illusionism isn't always IntCon and IntCon isn't always Illusionism; you've made the case that they aren't that relevant to each other.

You've also clarified what Forceful play is, which seems to be contrary to how Christoffer read it.  Thank you for settling that.  I was getting tired of not being able to say it as plainly as you have (and being accused of all kinds of personal agenda projection).

Quote from: Mike HolmesThis is the problem. Skarka isn't on the same page, and as such, his techniques could be used for all sorts of things.

My point exactly, and said better than I.  (Though I should qualify my last statement before this post, "My impression is that [Christoffer] can't imagine a [story oriented] game without some degree of [Covert Force]. In my eyes, that leaves [him] thinking that ultimately all [story oriented] gaming is Illusionism to some degree and that some games are simply 'more honest' about it."  And I still disagree.)

Fang Langford

Hmm. The only real exception to the idea of Story requiring Force (which could almost be called Author stance), IMO, is the Narrativist example that you give.

One of my points was to say that I think that IntCon, when you sort out it's likely goal of player modes, probably does require some force. Making it Illusionism in that case. Skarka just leaves it open to player interperetation (and as such it may just become Narrativism in play, or even Objective Sim in which case the best you can hope for is the "Series of interesting events").

Part of the problem is that I'm using Story pretty strongly towards the Edwardsian meaning. Not the Nar Premise part, but I am reqiring play to be other than a "Series of interesting events" to be a story. As such, that does require sombody to be using some sort of technique to occur other than simple interperetation of the setting in objective terms. That's either Force, or it's Narrativism on the parts of the players. Or both; note that Ron uses a lot of Force to promote Narrativism (you just can't force the outcome of the moral decisions; that part has to be Player power for it to be Narrativism).

Is that any more clear?

Mike

To set the record straight Fang, what had me up in arms was when you said "IntCon = 0 GM Oomph" and the correlated claim that since I was using Force I couldn't be doing IntCon. (Yes that's what you said!) Well that and the claim that "GM Oomph = Railroading".

Are you saying you've changed your stance about that?

Quote from: Pale FireAre you saying you've changed your stance about that?

Obviously, I've said as much.

Quote from: Pale Fire...You said "IntCon = 0 GM Oomph"

Not once did I say that.  Sigh, for the third time, I said, "in your manner of expression, '0 GM Oomph =/= Illusionism' AND Intuitive Continuity can comfortably exist without story or 'GM Oomph.'"  And after the full quotes were made available, I recanted the latter part; IntCon is obviously for story, but as Mike demonstrated, could be read as with or without Gamemaster Oomph because Skarka didn't have this terminology.

Which goes back to the original statement that you had such a problem.  I remain unconvinced that IntCon is simply another form of Illusionism.  From the above, I think it's pretty clear that neither completely encloses the other; honestly, why is this so important to you?  It's just my opinion.

Quote from: Pale Firethe claim that "GM Oomph = Railroading"

Over in this thread about Railroading (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4405) Mike lays it out very well.  I'm classified as thinking both that Railroading isn't always dysfunctional and it means the same as Force or Gamemaster Oomph; that puts me in the minority.  Besides, what difference does it make what I think of your preferred method of gaming?  It's not like I discuss it with anyone; heck I don't even like using the term 'Railroading' in public.

Now can you let it go?  Or do you feel so personally insulted that I must make a public apology for something I said in private?

Fang Langford

I just wasn't clear on what you wrote. I could see what you wrote before as both a "well, you have a point but I'm interpreting it my way" or "yes that's correct, and here are some more points". I just didn't know which one it was. There was a lot of "I agree, but only because it isn't what Christoffer said it was" so...

Quote from: Fang Langford

Quote from: Pale Fire...You said "IntCon = 0 GM Oomph"

Not once did I say that.  Sigh, for the third time, I said, "in your manner of expression, '0 GM Oomph =/= Illusionism' AND Intuitive Continuity can comfortably exist without story or 'GM Oomph.'"

Well, that's true. I admit mixing things up... I was the one who asked you if the above "IntCon = 0 GM Oomph" was what you meant.
What you actually said was IntCon has little or no GM Oomph.

This was the closest you got to ruling out Oomph for IntCon was:

QuoteThe reddened passages pretty much tell the story. Since overt (#2) use of gamemaster control (#1) is defined as railroading and both definitions of Intuitive Continuity define it as "NEVER railroading" (not even covertly) and "a form of 'winging it'" (no gamemaster control), Intuitive Continuity simply cannot be Illusionism. The "fixed variable" of gamemaster control is always present in Illusionism (however covert, flexible, or consensual) and "NEVER" in Intuitive Continuity, it seems pretty clear and simple to me.

Apologies for misquoting you like that. I stand corrected.

Now for a question:

If I understand things right, El Dorado is a proposition for something akin to a "GM Oomph free IntCon"(?) Something now understood(? or did I misunderstand that) going to some sort of Narrativism.

I'm not sure, but I seem to remember IntCon being established as GMing style working with (player) Simulationist play. In that case, wouldn't El Dorado rather been seen as a "hidden" "pure" Narrativist play?

On one side of the "Sim/Nar" divide we have IntCon grounded in Sim but borrowing covertly from Nar, and on the other we have El Dorado grounded in Nar but with (or without) a Sim covering? Would that work as a description?

(As for the other things: The problem we had in private was that since our definitions didn't match we were not able to communicate propertly. You felt I was missing your point and I felt the same)