*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 27, 2014, 01:02:51 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 55 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Disruptive and/or Stupid IIEE Question  (Read 1844 times)
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« on: February 13, 2002, 08:04:09 AM »

So if roleplaying is like every other shared creative activity I can think of, it's built out of this kind of process:

Proposal > Negotiation, Amendment, Counter-proposal > Acceptance

Like this:
"Hey, how about if my guy jumps up and runs along the tops of everybody's heads like Jet Li?"
"Dude, your guy's a feeb.  The dice say so."
"Dang.  Well, how about if I at least knock a random stranger down when I try?"
"Cool with me."

Or this:
"Hey, how about if my guy jumps up and runs along heads just like in the previous example?"
"Ha ha!  That's great!  Plus how about if that lets you get really close to the Evil Villain?"
"Huh?  Actually I want to go AWAY from his scary self."
"Oh, well that's okay too."

My question is, what does breaking it down into IIEE contribute?

I think the reason that I, I, E and E are so wiggly and blurred into each other in most game designs is that they're wiggly and blurred into each other in real life, existing as they do across all the steps of the Propose > Negotiate > Accept process.  (Well, at least the Propose and Negotiate steps.)  

Anyway wouldn't it be better for a game to be clear about what's a proposal and what's negotiation than about how you Intend and how you Initiate and so on?

-Vincent
Logged
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2002, 08:17:06 AM »

Vincent,

When you check out the original thread about IIEE begun by Manu and answered by me, you'll see that it's fundamentally about proposal ("what if") and establishment ("this happens"). The whole point of the four-step breakdown is to identify at which step, according to a particular game design, we move from proposal to establishment. All four steps have to be included because much of role-playing is about whether an action/goal succeeds, which is not the case for other media.

I submit that this need (proposal/establishment, relative to success/failure) is so fundamental to successful role-playing that different groups come to an accord about it, even an accord about "what to fight about," if the rules aren't helping them.

Traditionally, we see (a) a fair degree of chaos, or (b) very structured, highly Simulationist (ie linear-causal) methods of proposal and establishment, usually breaking up the first two (ie initiative) from the second two (ie one-by-one causal to-hit, damage, etc).

Breaking up the process into four steps permits the game design to specify which of them are Proposed, which are Established, and what needs to be Proposed before resolution. All of a sudden, resolution systems proliferate in ways never dreamed of by the late-80s [Hero GURPS Rifts Rolemaster] model.

Best,
Ron
Logged
lumpley
Administrator
Member
*
Posts: 3453


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2002, 09:03:16 AM »

Gotcha.  Excellent thread.
Logged
Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!