Chthonian and IIEE

[Zak Arntson]

I went and looked up the IIEE (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect) thread here. Chthonian is definitely a game where the Characters need to be reasonably competent.

When a Player wishes to do something it should go like this:
- Intent (Player) - Player declares his character will do something. The entire group is allowed to discuss the outcome, with the Player having the final say.
- Initiation (Character) - The Character makes her action, with the Player narrating this.
- Die Roll - This is where you get one of three ("No, and", "Yes, but", "Yes, and") results. Fortune in the Middle, explicitly.
- Execution & Effect (Player & Character) - The GM narrates both of these as a whole, with the allowance that the Player can interject and protest. Discussion between GM and Player occurs, with the end result cooperating with the Die Roll, Player and GM. (individual groups will have to gauge how to resolve a no-compromise situation, say with a vote or GM's-word-is-final).

---

This is how my group does things and we have had a great time during play, so I'm think of making this method explicit in Chthonian. I want to get other groups' experiences on handling of IIEE, however, before I make any final decisions.

Melodie, this is especially aimed at you since you've recently played Chthonian.

So, the question is:
How does your group handle IIEE (with regards to group satisfaction, ease of use and comfortability) and how does it compare to the Chthonian model above?

[Zak Arntson]

Just wanted to point out that I should make a distinction about Execution & Effect, especially in a social situation.

I will never put words into a Character's mouth. In the case of a swinging axe, it's easy for the GM to narrate Execution & Effect together: "Your axe swings down, but the man grabs the handle uses your tight grip to throw both you and the axe to the floor." But when it comes to a social situation, it's different. Execution can be a dialogue between GM (NPC) and Player (Character) where both GM & Player know the inevitable outcome or a simple statement by the GM ("She's not convinced and looks pretty mad.")

At it's most egregious I would say something like, "You lose her with a mumbled hello and trip all over your own tongue." And this is only if the Player isn't willing/ready to provide an appropriate response.

My gaming tends to go like this:

(Intent)
Player: "I approach him and try to Persuade him (looking at character sheet, Descriptor: Talking over people's heads) into letting me into his office."
GM: "He's a biology grad student, so he knows way more than you do. You can do this, but I'd suggest another approach. Guys?"
Player + Group talks things out.
Player: "Okay, here's what happens."
(Initiation)
Player: "I approach him, 'So I'm doing an article on TA/Professor relations, and would like to talk to you after class, say in your office?"
(Die Roll, FitM)
GM:  "Roll your Persuade"
Player: "Okay, my Persuade is low so I I'm burning a Permanent Safety for three more dice."
Roll, "No, and" result
Here's where things can branch out
(A. Execution & Effect - Player/GM trade-off)
Everyone involved knows it will be a failure.
GM: "'Excuse me, I really have to get going.'"
Player: "'Wait!'"
GM: "'I have no time for you.' The TA leaves quickly, muttering under his breath."
(B. Execution and Effect - GM narration)
GM: "The TA is obviously pissed. 'Leave me alone!' he grumbles and storms off."
(C. Execution and Effect - GM narrates with Character's implicit dialogue)
GM: "Things seem to ge well until you start asking about his Professor. He becomes visibly shaken, zips up his briefcase and cuts the conversation short."

[Bailywolf]

What about a "NO, BUT..." result?  Your action doesn't succede as intended, but something benefitial happens- the GM can thow the player a bone while narating a "NO".

"Your axe blow- swung with lethal speed- faisl to connect to your enemy's skull because he lunges beneath your swing and twords the door, BUT the axe falls on his trailing cloak, causing him to stumble in his flight..."

Or something like that.  The "BUT" is expressly different than the "AND" because it implies benifit for the PC even if the initiated intent itself fails.



But I like it..quite neat.

[Zak Arntson]

Good point. A "Yes, but" can easily be turned into a "No, but" response. I think in terms of System, that a "Yes, but" is equivalent to a "No, but" and the actual outcome is up to the group. So the Success with complications can be played as Failure with benefits if desired. I will make sure this is made clear in the rules. Thank you!

(Quick recap on System: Die Pool, 0 Successes = "No, and - Failure with consequences", 1 Success = "Yes, but - Success with complications", 2+ Successes = "Yes, and - Success with benefits")

In the actual text of the rules (so far) I don't explicitly write the Yes/No, And/But. It's a "Success/Failure with xyz." Players can read these phrases on their character sheet, which I've seen go a long way to avoid the whiff/bonk syndrome. Players roll and read "Failure with consequences" and get geared up for something more than a whiff.

[Bailywolf]

Since this is the most recent Cthonian thread, l'll drop this bit here.  I found a truly disturbing Manga the other day- UZUMAKI.  This is some freak-ass disturbing shit... and I hear there is an anime/movie based on it.  

Lovecraftian horror... without the lovecraft...and with that especialy hinky twist of Japanese body-hammer weird.

Check it out.

[rabidchyld]

When a Player wishes to do something it should go like this:
- Intent (Player) - Player declares his character will do something. The entire group is allowed to discuss the outcome, with the Player having the final say.
- Initiation (Character) - The Character makes her action, with the Player narrating this.
- Die Roll - This is where you get one of three ("No, and", "Yes, but", "Yes, and") results. Fortune in the Middle, explicitly.
- Execution & Effect (Player & Character) - The GM narrates both of these as a whole, with the allowance that the Player can interject and protest. Discussion between GM and Player occurs, with the end result cooperating with the Die Roll, Player and GM. (individual groups will have to gauge how to resolve a no-compromise situation, say with a vote or GM's-word-is-final).

How does your group handle IIEE (with regards to group satisfaction, ease of use and comfortability) and how does it compare to the Chthonian model above?

We never actually thought about it, ever...until I read this thread.  It was something that just happened.  I don't know if I can intelligently compare something I never knew I did.  It went like your Chthonian model for the most part, except that the players didn't usually discuss their actions.  They had their initiative, they declared what they were doing, the did it, I said what happened, and it was over.  

While playing Chthonian, although we didn't know it, we followed your model to the T.  Everyone had a great time playing and they were really happy with discussing their actions before they declared them.  They grew comfortable with the system quickly, and they understood it, which goes a long way towards making a good game.  

This is how my group does things and we have had a great time during play, so I'm think of making this method explicit in Chthonian.

Do it.  The more clear the rules and methods in the beginning, the less confusing, and more fun it will be for the players.

melodie