thread: 2009-07-13 : How About Some Q and A
On 2009-07-14, Vincent wrote:
Bwian: Cool. I think there's serious confusion out there about this, not just you, so it's very good that you asked.
The point of IIEE-based resolution is to resolve a character's intent into its final effect, exactly as you intuit, but to do so through the character's concrete action, not abstractly.
Here, check this out, you wrote this:
So then the 'intent' would be 'get into the tower by climbing through the window at the top, unassisted'. Initiation might be the same as in the original example: 'so you start to climb the wall' (although it might be: 'so you start walking toward the foot of the tower'). And execution might be 'So you climb up the wall and in through the window at the top of the tower'. Now the GM has to think what is the range of best to worst outcomes _given_ that the character has climbed up the wall and in through the window.
See that "and"? That's the break between execution and effect. It's a natural break, it already exists in how you write sentences and construct stories out of cause and effect. All you have to do is notice it.
What if you replace the "and" with a "but"? "So you climb up the wall but can't make it quite to the window." That's a perfectly valid, perfectly possible resolution of your intent. An effect you didn't hope for, but a legit effect nonetheless.
THEN, you can tell when you've reached the end of a resolution, the end of effect, because of the natural next thing for the GM to say: "so now what?" There you hang; what are you going to do next? Time for a new intent and a new resolution.
See it now?
