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


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?

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

Pale Fire wrote: 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

To me these definitions feel highly unorthodox, to say the least. But I might have misunderstood everything from the start.

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

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.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: 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.

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?

wfreitag wrote: 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.

...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.)

Orignally Mike Holmes wrote: In 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

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 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:

Gareth-Michael Skarka wrote: Divination 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).

Hey Christoffer,

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

Gareth-Michael Skarka wrote: 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! ...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).

Gareth-Michael Skarka wrote: Intuitive 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: I think Skarka clearly means to imply the use of Illusionist end-loading techniques, just like Walt implies.

Le Joueur wrote: 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.)

Ron Edwards wrote: 3) 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.

Pale Fire wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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.)

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.

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.

Pale Fire wrote: 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....

Pale Fire wrote: My 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.

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!

Mike Holmes wrote: 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: And 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.

Mike Holmes wrote: 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?

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

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?

Pale Fire wrote: Are you saying you've changed your stance about that?

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

Pale Fire wrote: the claim that "GM Oomph = Railroading"

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...

Fang Langford wrote:

Pale Fire wrote: ...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.'"

The 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.