An Experiment in Congruence

[Rob Carriere]

Aren't we commenting on the example from too much knowledge? It's a constructed example, so we know the guy who shoots the woman in the back is a gamist, because we created him that way. But what happens when you forget that and only observe the actual play?

Is this guy a gamist trying to win?
Is he a simulationist playing the `I don't give a damn about other people' type?
Is he a narrativist chosing to address the premise in a different way?

And the guy who lets the woman go, is he

A gamist who took a handicap (will not kill civilians)?
A simulationist playing the `noble soldier' type?
A narrativist addressing premise?

I do see the potential for player conflict in this game, it's certainly not for everybody, but I'm not convinced yet that any of it is GNS conflict.

SR
--

[Andrew Cooper]

Not trying to disrupt this thread but I have a question.  I've read the GNS essays and followed several threads on it.  IIEE has been thrown around in them.  What is it?  Where can I find it explained in detail?

[Alan]

Not trying to disrupt this thread but I have a question.  I've read the GNS essays and followed several threads on it.  IIEE has been thrown around in them.  What is it?  Where can I find it explained in detail?

This term and other Forge terminologies can be found in the glossaries of Ron's essays in the Articles section. http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/

The glosssary of the gamism essay might be a good place to start.

[JamesSterrett]

From: Gamism: Step On Up:

IIEE :
Intent, Initiation, Execution, and Effect - how actions and events in the imaginary game-world are resolved in terms of real-world announcement and imaginary order of occurrence.

See also

Four Steps to Action

and

What is IIEC?


My potentially flawed understanding of it is that it's very much akin to John Boyd's OODA (Observation - Orientation - Decision - Action) loop for analysis of aerial combat: it describes the process by which new actions/declarations entr the game world.

[Callan S.]

I think the problem with congruence here is that your pitching the three modes into an area where they create results that clash with each other. You've put them on three roads that crisscross each other, rather than parralel each other. I can't quite describe it, but making the focus of the game physical actions in the SIS does this. You need them to each have their space which they play in their own way, and the only way another can effect them is through a method that changes their mode to the users mode. In other words, each plays in their little space in their preferred mode, and your rules filter how they can effect each other, so each is only effected in the mode they wish to play in.

Okay, an example.
Say the game is about stone cold killers in the nam.
1. You can play it to maximise how much of a stone cold killer you are, try to be the most stoney.
2. You can play it to act out a stone cold killers decisions in the face of a premise.
3. You can play it by exploring what its like to be a stone cold killer

Well start with the gamist. His game isn't to choose the moves of the killer, his game is to maximise mental values and reactions of the killers mind. When combat comes around, decisions on these determines what the killer does. Note, this is a WAY big difference. His domain he works on is the killers mind. Since he can't directly affect the word, he can't directly affect the other PC's with his gamist style. He has to go through a filter, which can translate his actions to something suitable for the others modes. Note: This isn't as restricting as it sounds. He could set the mind to charge in as a high priority and generally his PC would. But he doesn't just get to decide it directly himself.

Second, the narrativist. This guy sets the killers mind so that he can express his address of premise through the killers actions. To be more precise, he expresses his address of premise by the way he sets up the killer, because he doesn't have direct control over the killer either. For example, he might try to set up the killer to do something about the gamist PC who chopped through a woman to get to his goal (killer with a concience, perhaps). It's important that he declares the intent at the table, because his PC might not actually do it, system determined. In fact he might, gutlessly, laugh with the other PC. The narrativist player might further express his address of premise by setting the killer to self mutilate his arm, latter, in shame.
Note: It might seem that the system undercuts the narrativists ability to address premise, but not letting him determine his PC's actions directly. While expression is important, true intent is far more important, I think. As long as that true intent is known around the table, the address has been shared.

Finally the simulationist. This guy sets the killers mind so he can basically explore the situation thoroughly. Sometimes the killer might not respond to piloting, but then again that's also exploration of the killers life. The filter between him and the other two mode players means what they do in the world is really just more material to explore, for him.


The important thing is, that they can't push their mode preference down each others PC's throat, directly. In other systems, the shared arena is the game world. If what you can do in a shared arena is directly controllable by the player, the player can push their mode preference directly and dominate or clash.

Now, if you have a shared space where the system ensures you have to go through it before you can affect others in the shared space, you have a system which can heavily ablate mode dominance in that shared space.

I think. :`