Quote from: Bren;895960Given the varying levels of realism in different RPGs I need may need to know a bit more than just hey that guy is big. The differences between a giant in D&D Greyhawk and Runequest Glorantha are enormous. I've certainly run D&D characters who could easily survive one or more  hits by a cyclops or giant. Whereas I've never seen a Runequest character who could survive the damage done by even a modest sized giant. That match up is close to the 90 pts damage vs. the 20 hit point character that was graphed out.

...

No doubt.  D&D and such abstract a lot more into hit points than mere damage.  Your not really "hit," but you are, and a high level character survives the Cyclops attack because they dodged and just got brushed etc.  At least that's how I saw it, or they could be like Dead Pool.   I like it better where the hit points that represent actual physical damage are delineated from those that represent dodging, skill, weaker blows, etc.  Although more realistic in a way, really don't like the all or nothing, i.e. missed or death version, just doesn't give me that swords and sorcery genre verisimilitude of being worn down.

Thankfully, the semantic assaults seem to have died down, which leave me actually able to address some less semantically related issues and concerns.

Quote from: Saurondor;895813Actually, what you shouldn't do, which you are, is to calculate the odds of a stormtrooper shooting Luke or Han in the face from what you see in the movie. You concluded that The odds were zero percent or such violence would not be Star Wars violence. You arrive at a cero value instead of a very low or infinitesimal value that doesn't make itself present in the movie. If the odds were zero percent as you say why did they hide when the Falcon was pulled into the Death Star? Why did they sneak in and sneak out? Once they were inside the Death Star they could have taken it from the inside by killing off all the imperial forces. Fuck the stolen schematics, fuck the heat exhaust to the core, fuck blue and gold and red team and Luke using the force to make the shot, fuck the rest of the movie. They were, after all, entitled to a zero percent chance of getting hit, right? They could have taken the whole battlestation from within without ever getting hit.

The rule which kept Han and Luke from being killed by random stormtrooper fire was a narrative rule. To wit it was the rule that "The writer says what happens." So Han and Luke were never in danger because there was no chance of them being killed unless George Lucas wanted them to be killed.

So what you go on to posit, is apparently that Han and Luke should be able to notice that they actually were in no danger. That they should look at each other and say, "Hey buddy! It appears that we are fictional characters who are in no danger of being shot and killed because the author doesn't want that to happen! Let's use this 'plot immunity' of ours to our advantage and slaughter every stormtrooper on the Deathstar!"

Think about this until you realize how silly it is.

However, I will note that this actually can be a problem in RPGs where the main characters are controlled by people other than the GM. If players do realize that their characters have 'plot immunity' and, for instance, can not be killed by random fire from mooks, there are certainly players who will try to take advantage of this similar to what you describe.

QuoteI've fudged oh so much and I'm not ashamed of it, nor do I get mad. If the rules written by an old fart miles away from me on some other hemisphere are breaking my game I rewrite them. Of course I prefer rules that are more streamlined and require little or no fudging, but I don't see rules as some "written in stone infalible simulation". I also consider many narrative point mechanics to be sanctioned fudging. It might sound nicer or whatever because you're not hiding the dice or adjusting the value, but in the end you're doing the same thing: jumping story tracks.

If you are willing to fudge when you don't like outcomes, why do you even really care about the rules of simulation at all? If they return outcomes that you find acceptable, accept them, if they don't, don't. Nevermind that your players will soon come to realize that only things that you as the GM want to happen will be allowed to happen, since this doesn't seem to concern you.

QuoteWhy do they focus on violence? Because they can get away with it. Like I've mentioned over the past few posts in many game mechanics the effect of damage is non-existent as I've shown with the MTTD graphs. Not even initiative matters in most cases. Who shot first? Solo or Greedo? Doesn't matter, whoever has more hit points wins. So Solo wins initiative and shoots first, does 8 points of damage, then Greedo fires and misses, Solo fires for 2 points, Greedo for 6 points, Solo mises, Greedo does 4, and finally Solo does 10 and that's the end of Greedo. He then brushes it off and takes another round of attacks now against a squad of stormtroopers trying to stop the from taking off Mos Eisley.

Note: In the 1997 version Greedo wins initiative, fires first, but Solo still has more hit points and it pretty much ends the same way. There's really no Solo Shot first debate in a hit point based system. Maybe I should get some t-shirts printed that say: Either way, Solo had more hit points.

Just sounds like you are getting sick of D&D to me. It's okay to move on.

QuoteThe answer isn't to stop fucking relying on combat as the staple of gameplay. It doesn't tell me how I'm going to fucking stop relying on combat. If the only thing my game can do is "model" combat then moving away from combat devalues the rule system. I need to provide an alternative mechanism that allows me to resolve other things aside from combat, preferably in an interesting and detailed way so players may be inclined to invest in such skills and features much like the do with weapons and training.

Well, there actually is advice related to this throughout the thread (admittedly awash in a sea of semantic battle). Here are a few pieces of related advice off the top of my head.

1. Let players set scenes to be played out as long as these scenes don't violate the framework of simulation you are operating under. Use these scenes to focus on character development and interaction, promoting character investment, and situations that are interesting outside of a combat context.

2. Don't be afraid to skip time. Also don't be afraid to zoom in on scenes that don't have a focus on combat. It is entirely okay to zoom in on the PCs crossing a bridge, or camping under the crisp Autumn stars, or talking about their pasts. make sure the players understand this.

3. Don't feel like you constantly have to shoehorn everything into something that can be adjudicated by dice rolls. Let people talk. Let choices matter.

Anything that anyone wants to add is welcome.

QuoteIf a game has a combat by attrition mechanism then a face to face standoff between a protagonist and a stormtrooper will rarely rely on dialogue. If it's possible to "outlive" your opponent in such an obviously deadly situation then dialogue will not be top of the list. If on the other hand the gunfight can go either way at such short distance then both will try to talk themselves out of the situation.

Many games focus on violence because violence in such games isn't really that violent. My focus to solve the issue you mention is to make violence even more violent. When you take out hit points as buffers, make weapons really damaging and deadly, then and only then do players stop using violence as a "first way out". My role model movies are the likes of Band of Brothers and Black Hawk Down, and yet damage is the least detailed and important bit of data in the game. It's the thing you rarely roll for. I even had to write an introductory page to tell players how not to play the game because they were dropping like flies. I clearly pointed out that the game should not be "dungeon crawled", don't rely on hit points or initiative. Weapons and combat mechanics are there to support good player decisions, but walking into a room without checking it out first, and without flashbanging it is just plain suicidal. Going into a mission without prior research, not gathering intelligence from locals is irresponsible (action which leads to a great deal of narrative content BTW), not planning for worse case scenarios, not working fast and keep moving is bad, etc.. You get the idea, overall all that which is cool and doesn't require the firing of a weapon.

I bolded some statements which seem to somewhat contradict each other.

And I am honestly not sure what you mean when you say, "Many games focus on violence because violence in such games isn't really that violent." Are you saying no one ends up dead in a lot of games? Or just that no PCs end up dead?

Regardless, I actually do agree that game violence tends to be quite far removed from depictions of real violence.

Quote from: Lunamancer;895814Okay, but my point isn't whether or not we can simulate an author's mind. Actually my point is exactly that we really can't know enough to do so in general. And yes, that would include in tabletop RPGs.

The point that I made 80 pages ago is that it's because of the lack of transparency of the author's mind that if the author wants to produce certain effects--like maintaining suspension of disbelief--he MUST use certain narrative conventions. Whereas in RPGs, where there is some transparency into the rules, we are not so obliged. RPGs can produce great, entertaining stories that would not be great or entertaining if the exact same story was presented through book or film. Similarly, as anyone who's ever been frustrated by GM railroading can attest to, there are great, entertaining stories that can be told in book or film that would be neither great nor entertaining as RPGs.

I realize this isn't a point you were addressing. But it's an important one nonetheless. For one, it's the raison d'etre for so-called "narrativism" in RPGs to begin with. If it's aimed at a foolish or impossible goal, we should know that up front, before treading down that path. And two, it means when we talk about "story" in RPGs--in particular, how to get better stories--we need to be thinking in terms of eliminating those that do not translate well over to the RPG medium while including those things that would never be entertaining in book or film but work well for RPGs.

Well, I actually have kind of addressed it. I believe I have said flat out that I think that railroading sucks, and tried to make it very clear that what I mean by "good narrative" has nothing to do with hammering apart rules of simulation in order to arrive at some preordained "narratively pleasing" outcome.

QuoteMaybe you're right. Maybe the Star Wars films do not translate very well to RPGs. If that's the case, we shouldn't be thinking about how we can get something like that using rules of simulation. We shouldn't be thinking about how to reproduce the movies through RPGs at all! We should focus instead on those stories that RPGs do run well.

Please note that "getting a good narrative" does not equal "reproducing a movie or book" and that I have actually stated more than once that I do not believe genre emulation is a realistic goal to arrive at under rules of simulation.

Quote from: Lunamancer;895822So here's something I've been meaning to toss at you, and now is a good time as any...

I've got this, I guess you could call it "mega dungeon" Gygax wrote in his later years, The Hall of Many Panes, which is definitely the most fun adventure module I've ever come across. It has an intricate backstory, the relevant part of which is that the precipitating events that lead to the PCs involvement in the adventure is a squabbling among gods. Good vs Evil. But one in particular, a neutral trickster god--think a super-powerful leprechaun--has tweaked things a bit for his own amusement.

Now one of the instructions in the module is to allow a one-time "Get out of TPK free" card where the trickster god rescues the party. He mocks them for their lack of brains but says they're giving him too many laughs to let them die just yet, so he's going to save them just this one time. He lets them know next time he'll just let them rot in their graves and find another group of mortals to entertain him.

Nothing about this contradicts my expectations considering we're talking about a fantasy world with active deities. But the question is, is this fiat, or is this just part of how the world works?

And let me follow up with this. Wishes. These are powers that D&D characters can happen upon by-the-book. Hell, they can even learn Wish as a spell and use it to their heart's content. They are part of the rules-as-written, and in fact the rules do have some proscribed limitations for wishes. But aside from that? Within those bounds, the players just get to make up whole cloth the effect of the power. And mind you, the PCs certainly can and do use wishes for things far, far less subtle than a suave GM fudging things to save the life of a PC (something within the bounds of what a wish can accomplish).

Wish does all sorts of things--usually of even greater power and breadth--normally allowable by meta-game resources like fate points. And let's not get hung up on the player decides the wish vs the DM decides divine intervention. The DMG 1st Ed actually does have rules and a formula for determining the probability for divine intervention. So DI, in a sense, is just a wish that the GM gets to word.

So, how about them wishes? What are they? Fiat? Meta-game devices? Narrativist rules? Always bearing in mind, they are grounded in things specifically kosher to the game world and explicitly BtB/RAW.

A wish in D&D is a trope that has been modeled in a way that focuses with a very heavy hand on game balance. Note that you can not generally wish to be "as strong as the strongest diety" under D&D rules. When wishes appear in fiction, folklore, and etc. they tend to be much less restrained. I can't recall a lot of games I have run in which PCs were granted wishes; maybe one game? But personally, game balance is very low on my list of considerations when i run a game, as I consider it to be something which often runs counter to either simulation or good narrative principle.

The Gygax "get out of TPK free card" thing is a meta means of partially addressing the potentially derailing issue of TPKs, but one that has been translated into terms that allow it to manifest in a non meta manner within the simulation. Somewhat similar to how meta resources can be relabeled as "Force points" or whatever and manifested within the terms of simulation in a Star Wars game.

I don't have particularly strong feelings about this kind of thing one way or the other, but I think the assumption of such devices would only serve to complicate the core subject of this thread, which is apparently complex enough as it stands.

Quote from: Maarzan;895925The thing with seeding - especially post start seeding but not only - is, that there are also chances and simulation focus based assumptions involved, that will heavily influence game and gaming decissions. For example such a big hotpot of dynamic events liek this rival circus will (probably aggressively) radiate out to its environment and thus become the dominating element of the game. It is not anymore about managing your own circus with some events strewn in like a "Normal" rival circus with perhaps one special effect but about one freaking monster circus running around and the characters having to do something about it with having to manage your own circus that probabyl is best delegated to your henchmen, because the chars are probably the best suited ones to deal with the monster circus or it is mandatory for soem kind of self preservation.

I don't think that is really true. It only will radiate out to dominate the game if I allow it to do so as a GM. As long as I do my best to make the rival circus adhere to simulationist tenets in what they are able to accomplish, and to know, than they are going to have a limited sphere of operations and influence. I mean, I didn't say that this rival circus was secretly a bunch of demi-gods or anything like that.

Quote from: Lunamancer;895955... Or even what you anticipate will happen based on nothing but your sense of things. Do you really need to see the cyclops man-handle the men like rag dolls, cracking their skulls against the ground to eat their brains in order to realize the cyclops is a big, strong dude that you don't want trying to hurt you? The GM's description should be enough. And this is where narration can have a very tangible impact on the game without cutesy little "narrativist" rules. To a degree, virtually all GMs do this automatically. They match the narrative, not necessarily to what is, but to the player's perceptions, e.g. "The room appears empty," when it is in fact not. But it's possible to communicate more subtle ideas through the narrative which can cause players to choose differently than they otherwise would have given a different narrative.

Yeah, I actually agree with Bren's response on this one. Unless the players are very familiar with the rules, the exact extent and scope of threat that something represents is not going to always be immediately apparent. This becomes even more true when a system allows for "mook" rules, or other rules which allow for what something appears to represent to actually have a tremendous degree of variability.

For instance, as a player, the GM tells us we see two guys in platemail with great swords. How do i know whether these are 1st level fighters or 18th level fighters based purely on this description? Does the GM have a duty to clue me in in some manner, even if the difference would not necessarily be apparent based on "in world" observation? Or even when the variance may be based on meta factors such as "mook" status?

Quote from: Manzanaro;895993A wish in D&D is a trope that has been modeled in a way that focuses with a very heavy hand on game balance. Note that you can not generally wish to be "as strong as the strongest diety" under D&D rules. When wishes appear in fiction, folklore, and etc. they tend to be much less restrained.

Well, wishes in fiction have the medium on their side. One of the explicitly forbidden wishes in D&D is wishing dragons didn't breathe fire. I think the nature of the wish is inherently problematic in a world where the PC is not the only one with the power of wish. Especially when deities do have that power. The wish would conflict with the will of the gods, who wish that dragons do breathe fire. That's less of a concern in fiction because the author controls both the character who makes the wish as well as the gods who might allow it to stand. They all flow from a single brain. They can in a sense "conspire" to allow whatever story the author wishes. We know RPGs just don't work that way. It's not that wishes in RPGs lack the power per se. It's perfectly kosher to wish a particular dragon didn't breathe fire. It's just certain wishes lead to inherent conflict which demand resolution.

That said, yes, there were players who focused on wishing up game stats. You don't really see in fiction an elf wishing his level limit as a wizard were higher. Fiction doesn't have game stats. So naturally there will be wishes which make sense in the RPG that don't make sense in fiction, just as there are RPGs which are practical in fiction but not in RPGs. When it comes to game numbers, it's easy to view that much of it through the lens of game balance.

But then, finally, you have the little things, that don't try to change the entire world and don't try to manipulate game stats, but things we can imagine being hugely meaningful to real people. A wish for a young maiden's heart, a wish for eternal beauty, that sort of thing. D&D doesn't really say much or place much limits on them. And that is where there is the most potential on the part of the wishing player to be creative and go far beyond anything in the rules.

QuoteI don't have particularly strong feelings about this kind of thing one way or the other, but I think the assumption of such devices would only serve to complicate the core subject of this thread, which is apparently complex enough as it stands.

Complicate or clarify?

Because if straight up GM fiat to rescue the party from TPK is not kosher--and I agree that it isn't--but the example from Hall of Many Panes IS kosher, then that suggests that when it comes right down to it, the REAL distinguishing characteristic of simulationism has nothing to do with most of what was discussed in this thread. It has to be one of the two differences about the Gygax get-out-of-TPK-free card from standard GM fiat. Namely, that it is couched in the workings of a fantasy game world, and that it is decided before play of the adventure commences that the GM will be allowed to do that.

On the other hand, if it's not kosher sim, it tells us sim requires more than the event just fitting into the game world and having rules-approval. It requires something else. But what? I'd be open to hearing ideas. But until then, I'm going with the former case as more plausible--that "fiat" isn't really fiat if it can be justified by the game world and is a switch you flick on before the game begins.

Quote from: Manzanaro;895997Yeah, I actually agree with Bren's response on this one. Unless the players are very familiar with the rules, the exact extent and scope of threat that something represents is not going to always be immediately apparent. This becomes even more true when a system allows for "mook" rules, or other rules which allow for what something appears to represent to actually have a tremendous degree of variability.

Meh. I think both of you are taking it far too literally. The point is, the players can make an educated guess based on narrative clues as to what to expect. That's not to say the guess can't be far off the mark. You are correct that you really just don't know. But that's only more reason to err on the side of caution when you see something big and scary. Not less.

QuoteFor instance, as a player, the GM tells us we see two guys in platemail with great swords. How do i know whether these are 1st level fighters or 18th level fighters based purely on this description? Does the GM have a duty to clue me in in some manner, even if the difference would not necessarily be apparent based on "in world" observation? Or even when the variance may be based on meta factors such as "mook" status?

That's always the tricky thing about humans. And no, the GM doesn't have a "duty" to provide clues. The GM has a duty to narrate in a way that is consistent with the characters perceptions. I listed a blatant example to demonstrate there is no debate on this point. Such as when the GM explains that the room appears empty. The room may be empty. It may not be empty. That's not relevant to what the characters initial perception is. The GM narrates according to the characters perception rather than what actually is. The GM is allowed--even duty bound--to provide false information in the narrative if that is how the characters would perceive it. A very dangerous sirene might be described with a mirthful or whimsical mood to the narrative, and that is correct and proper because the sirene is being deceptive to lure the characters to their doom.

The point is, the narrative can affect player choice. And how the combat plays out, even just by virtue of the number of rounds and dice rolls, changes the narrative. This is another factor that complicates Saurondor's one-roll-equivalent.

Quote from: Lunamancer;896001Complicate or clarify?

Because if straight up GM fiat to rescue the party from TPK is not kosher--and I agree that it isn't--but the example from Hall of Many Panes IS kosher, then that suggests that when it comes right down to it, the REAL distinguishing characteristic of simulationism has nothing to do with most of what was discussed in this thread. It has to be one of the two differences about the Gygax get-out-of-TPK-free card from standard GM fiat. Namely, that it is couched in the workings of a fantasy game world, and that it is decided before play of the adventure commences that the GM will be allowed to do that.

On the other hand, if it's not kosher sim, it tells us sim requires more than the event just fitting into the game world and having rules-approval. It requires something else. But what? I'd be open to hearing ideas. But until then, I'm going with the former case as more plausible--that "fiat" isn't really fiat if it can be justified by the game world and is a switch you flick on before the game begins.

Let's look at a slightly different example. Let's say I am playing a computer D&D game, like Baldur's Gate, or Pool of Radiance.

I am merrily playing along, enjoying the emerging narrative of my character's adventures on the Sword Coast, when- BAM! I wander into the wrong area and my party is wiped out in a TPK.

And so I set aside the game as it is finished.

Or I don't, and instead simply restore a save game. But what allowed me to rule that the TPK was not really the end of the narrative after all and set back time to a previous point? Well, this reset was accomplished by means of a restore game mechanic that enabled me to strike out the TPK based purely on my fiat as a player. I was able to say, "That didn't really happen," because that is what I wanted to say.

Now, our first player is like, "Bullshit! You just broke the rules of the simulation, and that is against the way I play games because, for one thing, it totally broke my immersion!"

But now, what if I say, "Well, restoring my saved game actually represents a god of the setting turning back the hands of time. It isn't meta at all." So, in saying this, have I actually changed what happens when I restore a saved game? Or have I merely recontextualized the process into something that is more accommodating of the first player's sense of immersion?

So again, I don't have any super strong feelings about this sort of thing, but the premise of this discussion is that there are not meta mechanics contextualized into the simulation to solve these problems for us, and so I am not going to have any particular interest in these kind of meta workarounds, particularly when they are simply not appropriate to many settings, and in fact, are basically only viable solutions when you have a meta layer to the sim itself in which dwell imaginary gods of the setting or suchlike where we can say, "This manipulation of the sim layer was not done by me, but by a godlike figure within the simulation itself."

So, at worst I just see it as another sort of illusionism, while at best it represents a sort of strange loop which could easily become a pit of discussion that has no bottom.

Quote from: Lunamancer;896001Well, wishes in fiction have the medium on their side. One of the explicitly forbidden wishes in D&D is wishing dragons didn't breathe fire. I think the nature of the wish is inherently problematic in a world where the PC is not the only one with the power of wish. Especially when deities do have that power. The wish would conflict with the will of the gods, who wish that dragons do breathe fire. That's less of a concern in fiction because the author controls both the character who makes the wish as well as the gods who might allow it to stand. They all flow from a single brain. They can in a sense "conspire" to allow whatever story the author wishes. We know RPGs just don't work that way. It's not that wishes in RPGs lack the power per se. It's perfectly kosher to wish a particular dragon didn't breathe fire. It's just certain wishes lead to inherent conflict which demand resolution.

I had meant to reply to this also.

See, this is where I would start applying principles of deconstruction where we actually start breaking this stuff down and analyzing it. What is a wish? Do the gods have power over magic? Do they limit what a wish can attain? If so for what reasons? Do the gods feel threatened by a mortal wishing for an 18 Strength? Or even an 18 (00) or a 25 Strength? Are the gods of the setting omnipotent? Can they cancel a wish? Can they make their displeasure in the wish maker known? Do they become alarmed by wizards or other mortals who have gained the ability to alter reality on a fundamental level?

And then you take the answers you come up with and you use them to determine how the wish plays out and what limits it has (hopefully based in the terms of simulation rather than in game balance concerns) and you play to find out what happens.

Quote from: Manzanaro;896019I had meant to reply to this also.

See, this is where I would start applying principles of deconstruction where we actually start breaking this stuff down and analyzing it. What is a wish? Do the gods have power over magic? Do they limit what a wish can attain? If so for what reasons? Do the gods feel threatened by a mortal wishing for an 18 Strength? Or even an 18 (00) or a 25 Strength? Are the gods of the setting omnipotent? Can they cancel a wish? Can they make their displeasure in the wish maker known? Do they become alarmed by wizards or other mortals who have gained the ability to alter reality on a fundamental level?

And then you take the answers you come up with and you use them to determine how the wish plays out and what limits it has (hopefully based in the terms of simulation rather than in game balance concerns) and you play to find out what happens.

I guess what I was imagining is that the gods don't necessarily have to have power over magic. We know they have access to the wish power itself. Now it might even be explicit in the creation mythology, but it stands to reason if ancient gods possess this power, the nature of the world is going to reflect their desires. Imperfectly, because each god may desire a different thing. So I'm thinking more in terms of conceptual limits on wishes. Like wishes can't produce contradictory things. If the world is the way it is because the gods wished it so, a player's wish cannot change the nature of the world because it would contradict the wishes of the gods.

And this is why wishes can also have unforeseen side-effects. What does it mean to have a 25 strength, for example? If such characteristics are impossible for humans per the nature of the world, then in order for the person who wished to be that strong, that person may have to assume non-human form in order to allow the wish to manifest. It may transform the person into a giant, a titan, a tarrasque, or something else along those lines. And when a person tries to word their wish so specifically as to avoid side-effects, they are creating a contradictory wish, which has no power.

Sure. I think that a) those are perfectly legitimate answers and b) by taking that time to think about them you will actually end up with a far more interesting narrative than if you ad adhered to the wish guidelines per the DMG with their concerns centered on game balance.

Quote from: Manzanaro;895990If you are willing to fudge when you don't like outcomes, why do you even really care about the rules of simulation at all? If they return outcomes that you find acceptable, accept them, if they don't, don't. Nevermind that your players will soon come to realize that only things that you as the GM want to happen will be allowed to happen, since this doesn't seem to concern you.

The whole fudge issue is a hoax to me. First of all I'm falible, I can do something wrong and need to compensate. Secondly, it seems you believe the rules of simulation to be both complete and consistent in all situations in which they're applied. This may not be the case and "fixing" needs to be done, or extending (which I can get wrong, see above). Added to this there's the issue of target value. In certain situations the target value is set, as is the case of combat in many games, but what if the target value is set by me? Say I set a required roll of 30% and the roll comes out as 29%, I can rule it happens with some limitation. Once again my view of "degrees" of success vs a binary position of success/failure. Am I fudging because I turned a 29 into a 30 when I could very well had said 25? Or 40? Finally, regarding overall power and control. What's the issue if I fudge the roll against a troll when I get to set the bridge layout? I don't need to play the dice against players (or in favor) when I have more powerful means to enforce only things that you as the GM want to happen. I don't need to fudge dice to be a ass, and ruling against fudging won't stop me from being one either. In other words you won't fix the issues you refer to by creating some "magic narrative anti-fudge mechanic", it's fixed by experience, attitude and simple common sense.

Quote from: Manzanaro;895990Well, there actually is advice related to this throughout the thread (admittedly awash in a sea of semantic battle). Here are a few pieces of related advice off the top of my head.

1. Let players set scenes to be played out as long as these scenes don't violate the framework of simulation you are operating under. Use these scenes to focus on character development and interaction, promoting character investment, and situations that are interesting outside of a combat context.

2. Don't be afraid to skip time. Also don't be afraid to zoom in on scenes that don't have a focus on combat. It is entirely okay to zoom in on the PCs crossing a bridge, or camping under the crisp Autumn stars, or talking about their pasts. make sure the players understand this.

3. Don't feel like you constantly have to shoehorn everything into something that can be adjudicated by dice rolls. Let people talk. Let choices matter.

Yes, but how? How does character development contribute back into the story? How can existing mechanics leverage this development? How do I zoom into scenes? How is the character's skill, background, interaction, etc. affect this zoom in and what happens during this zoom in? How can current mechanics be used for more than just combat? For example a court of law, solving a case, setting a PC free of charges?

Above all, how can rules of simulation contribute to addressing those three points and in doing so arrive at good narrative?

Quote from: Saurondor;896205The whole fudge issue is a hoax to me. First of all I'm falible, I can do something wrong and need to compensate. Secondly, it seems you believe the rules of simulation to be both complete and consistent in all situations in which they're applied. This may not be the case and "fixing" needs to be done, or extending (which I can get wrong, see above). Added to this there's the issue of target value. In certain situations the target value is set, as is the case of combat in many games, but what if the target value is set by me? Say I set a required roll of 30% and the roll comes out as 29%, I can rule it happens with some limitation. Once again my view of "degrees" of success vs a binary position of success/failure. Am I fudging because I turned a 29 into a 30 when I could very well had said 25? Or 40? Finally, regarding overall power and control. What's the issue if I fudge the roll against a troll when I get to set the bridge layout? I don't need to play the dice against players (or in favor) when I have more powerful means to enforce only things that you as the GM want to happen. I don't need to fudge dice to be a ass, and ruling against fudging won't stop me from being one either. In other words you won't fix the issues you refer to by creating some "magic narrative anti-fudge mechanic", it's fixed by experience, attitude and simple common sense.

Saurondor... Didn't you just say, "I've fudged oh so much and I'm not ashamed of it, nor do I get mad"? But now suddenly the whole concept is a hoax? Like, you have this hypothetical nonsense and you want me to tell you if it's fudging because you don't know? You want me, apparently, to precisely define fudging for you? Even though you already actually know what it means? Even though you are somebody complaining about too much semantics?

QuoteYes, but how?

Come on dude... Why are you acting like you just joined the thread? Why are you acting like I haven't talked about this shit before?.

But okay, let me make the (increasingly unlikely seeming) assumption that you are actually participating in this discussion in good faith and try to provide some quick answers.

QuoteHow does character development contribute back into the story?

This is something I am not going to try to explain to you. But don't sweat it. Remember my saying that "good" narrative is subjective? Well what that means is that if you aren't interested in character development? If you are perfectly satisfied with games revolving around cardboard characters that no one at the table understands, empathizes with, or cares about? Than you can pass over all advice related to character development. "If it don't apply, let it fly."

QuoteHow can existing mechanics leverage this development?

1) I'm not familiar with the particular existing mechanics that you are asking about. Or did you want me to just run through all existing mechanics in all RPGs?

2) Character development is not usually contingent upon game mechanics, in my experience. Crazy stuff, huh?

QuoteHow do I zoom into scenes?

Zooming into scenes basically means playing something out rather than skipping it. So if you want to zoom in on something, you do that with words. So if I say, "Three days later you arrive at the dungeon. There were no encounters along the way," I have chosen not to zoom in on anything along the way.

What I am suggesting is that we focus in on things other than combat and other staples of the game. And in particular that we find ways to focus on the PCs, and allow the players to also bring things into focus that will illuminate their characters. If you are seriously interested in this subject, rather than just trying to punch holes in my position, I could add more on it when I have some time.

QuoteHow is the character's skill, background, interaction, etc. affect this zoom in and what happens during this zoom in?

It's variable. Like I said, I will often let player's set scenes under certain circumstances, which means I let them choose things to zoom in on. Let's say the party has some down time. I may ask each player to tell me what is going on (which they will know is both an opportunity to take care of 'business' but also an invitation to frame a scene.

So the player of the thief may say, "Gash Grimsby is at the Gilded Goblin tavern with a wench on his arm as he shoots dice with a couple half-orc mercenaries." That sounds fine to me. I don't need to overrule anything there based on his skills, background, and etc. I may spend a few minutes playing this scene out, or call for a gambling roll, or a Streetwise skill check or whatever. I may play out some dialogue.

But, on the other hand, if the Cleric, or Paladin, or what have you, sets this same scene? I will be more likely to take this as a statement of intent, and actually play some things out to see if it goes like the player envisioned it after all.

Similarly, if the thief wanted to zoom in on a scene where he is having am elegant dinner with the mayor? Depending on the character's background, that is something where I am likely to say, "Let's back up... How do you plan on making that happen?"

QuoteHow can current mechanics be used for more than just combat?

I don't know what your current mechanics are. This is not sarcasm.

QuoteFor example a court of law, solving a case, setting a PC free of charges?

Well, I'm not a lawyer or any other legal professional. So it is kind of like the circus thing... I'm not going to pretend to completely and accurately simulate courtroom proceedings any more than I would claim to completely and accurately simulate circus microeconomics.

But certainly I can use my layman's understanding of the courtroom situation to the best of my ability. I can factor in known variables like: What is the PC charged with? Did he really do it? Is there evidence of such? Are there witnesses? What exactly are the PCs doing in terms of trying to solve the case, or set the PC free, or whatever? And then you play things out that seem appropriate and you fill in the gaps via the rules of simulation, using such things as skill checks.

QuoteAbove all, how can rules of simulation contribute to addressing those three points and in doing so arrive at good narrative?

The rules of simulation contribute to good narrative in part by establishing uncertainty, drama, and (hopefully) a strong sense of verisimilitude. However, we can not count on rules of simulation alone to provide a good narrative. Notice that none of my three sample points are dependent upon rules of simulation, but instead are about employing narrative techniques that do not violate the rules of simulation and adhering to outcomes generated by rules of simulation when we do indeed refer to these rules.

Manzanaro I believe we're at the point at which we have to be more specific. I can do all that you mention in any game; add more character detail? check; zoom into scenes? check; skip time? check; resolve without using dice? check. Since I can do this with many games, some simulationist and some not so much so, I can conclude that these aren't recommendations particular to "getting good narrative from rules of simulation", they're just recommendations to get good narrative, period. The question here is: How to leverage these recommendations in the context of a simulationist game?

Let's take a character as an example. His name is Sauron Dorian, he's in his thirties, after high school he left the family farm, enlisted, and went to war for two years. After he came back he went to law school, passed the bar exam and practiced law for about two years before the apocalypse hit. Now, almost a year after day zero, Sauron Dorian and a group of other PCs have managed to secure a parcel of land and have a small community going on. This was done by fighting off zombies and local marauding groups, but we're not going to get into this as it's combat specific and we're not focusing on combat right now.

So surely issues arise everyday. How does Sauron Dorian's background help resolve issues like weeds, plagues, irrigation, harvesting, etc.? How do we resolve the matter of some tool breaking down? It's quite clear that fixing a motor saw will be easier than fixing a combine. Particularly since you might have more than one motor saw, but maybe no more than one combine and cannibalizing one to fix the other is not an option. How do you represent difficulty in this game? How does the "more fleshed out character" manifest itself in these mechanics? And I'm not referring to a specific set of mechanics, or "my mechanics", but rather the "theoretical" mechanic requirements we are working on now. Don't need specifics like dice types and detail so down to earth, instead just a bit more specific as to what you'd like to see going on. Is there some procedure that involves dice to resolve the "fixing the combine" challenge? Or do we just rule and voilà? This being faithful to your statement : 3. Don't feel like you constantly have to shoehorn everything into something that can be adjudicated by dice rolls. Let people talk. Let choices matter.

So we have a situation. Harvest time is coming up and the combine is broken. How do we solve this? Is Sauron Dorian's farm background good enough to fix it? Do we go out and find a mechanic who can fix it? Do we go out and see if we can stumble upon another combine to cannibalize? Do we use combat skills and steal a combine from another settlement? Does Sauron write up a lease contract with a neighboring settlement for their combine for a month? My character has backgrounds in farming and farm administration, combat an law, how do these come into play?

So on the matter of How to leverage these recommendations in the context of a simulationist game? I ask you these, what features would you like to see in the simulation that could work hand in hand with what you highlight as recommendations for good narrative?