And this is why we can't have nice jargon.

I just got done posting about exactly this kind of bullshit, and this thread is literally a point by point example of it. So time to drop the Q.E.D.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881579I did say in my OP that the point was to talk about techniques for getting a good narrative from a simulationist game right? Heck it's right there in the title!

The only people who talk like this are the people who have been exposed to RPG theory but didn't bother to actually read any of it. Simulationist is a dead giveaway as that term is near exclusively a product of Forge theory with a very specific meaning, and 'Right to Dream' replaced it as the preferred term ages ago.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881707"Narrative" does not mean what Ron Edwards thought it meant. I am sorry if he convinced you that it does.

Quote from: nDervish;881935Honestly, I have no clue what Edwards thought it meant.  Considering how muddled his writings on the topic are, I often question whether he himself knows what he thinks it means.

I think Ron has exactly the same understanding of what 'narrative' means as you or I.

'Narrativism' on the other hand.

And definitions are not about convincing others what words mean, but stating what you interpret them to mean so people can agree to share that understanding for the purposes of discussion.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881707Skipping the boring stuff is a narrative principle,

So who decides what's boring?

Quote from: Manzanaro;881722But techniques does not equal rules. I am specifally interested in narrative techniques and how they apply to RPGs as opposed to rules which directly constrain possibilities and dictate outcomes in a formulaic fashion.

But a technique is a set of rules which constrain possibilities and dictate outcomes in a formulaic fashion, and the purpose of applying one is to achieve a specific result consistently.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881813But then we start getting into genre emulation and to my mind genre emulation is definitionally outside the category of simulation. There's no such thing as simulated genre.

But genre emulation is a simulation. It consists of specific rules and conceits which when applied enforce a certain milieu. You are Simulating "A world in which...". And emulation and simulation are synonymous in this particular context, so now you're just mincing words.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881965And it's because Ron Edwards used the word "narrativism" to mean "games that Ron Edwards likes" and basically poisoned the concept of narrative for a whole lot of people who were deeply interested in RPGs.

[STRIKE]Narrativism[/STRIKE] Story Now: And RPG session where the point of play is to address a theme or premise through character action.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881965Why did he do this? Because he was an asshole with an agenda. At least that's my theory.

Then why are you using his terminology?!?

Quote from: Manzanaro;882020The purpose of this thread is to discuss ways of getting a "good" narrative (whatever thst may mean to a given person) from a simulationist ruleset.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882085Like 'story' has less connotations? Narrative is the word that fits. An accounting of events.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882097I do not have a single set of ideal narrative characteristics, and tone may vary considerably even within a single session.

If you're going to be this vague and general then we can't help you with any techniques to achieve whatever it is you want.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882027How about the narrative that emerged from John Wick's Temple of Horrors scenario in that other thread?

I suspect it sucked, because it wasn't even good enough for you to remember the right title.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882051No simulation can be complete. A GM in particular is going to find himself simply deciding what happens at some point. "Authoring" events. So what principles do you use to make these decisions?

A simulation by definition is incomplete, and those principles come from whichever particular game system I'm using at the moment, because that's what a game system is.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882051I get the whole immersion thing. I do. I have praised it as a technique in this very thread.

But apparently you don't, because immersion is not a technique, but an objective which techniques can help achieve.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882070Coming up with terminology for stuff that there really is no existing terminology for is kind of a bitch. So you start using shorthand that is more or less functionally equivalent. And then people don't know what the fuck I'm even talking about... But what can you do.

How about not using more or less functionally equivalent shorthand created by someone you consider to be an asshole for a start?

Quote from: Manzanaro;882097Trust me, if I were to try to even say, here are some examples of narrative characteristics that belong in every game, what I would get is people shouting that they did not like those things and I should stop telling them how to play.

That's why you ask "here are some examples of [STRIKE]narrative[/STRIKE] characteristics I want in every game. How do I achieve them?"

Quote from: Manzanaro;882118Narrative isn't exactly obscure jargon. I'd think anybody with a 6th grade education would probably he able to decipher it.

And yet here you are, obscuring it or generalizing it to the point of uselessness.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882118And is there, like, a particular sentence that you can point at as not understanding?

Quote from: Manzanaro;882121Point me to a sentence you don't understand.

See all of the above.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882431I have seen too many times where people want to play out shopping or drinking in a tavern, and it just ends up being meandering and tedious. I am not really into playing quirky innkeepers and shopkeepers and trying to keep people entertained on that level.

Damn. So much for my upcoming Cheers: The RPG. Perhaps there's still time to license Seinfeld.

Quote from: Manzanaro;882478I don't know what you think I mean when I talk about using narrative techniques in a simulationist game? But what I am quoting from you here absolutely fits into the kind of techniques I am talking about.

At least there's a happy ending.

As for everyone else...

Quote from: Skarg;881553Huh, and I realize people seem to have ignored my posts,

I sometimes think that too, but it just seems that way

Quote from: Stainless;881573A pure simulationist approach might be;

GM: "You see a figure up ahead, it's shoulders are slumped and it's shuffling along".

It's then left to the players to infer what the figure's frame of mind is. They might interpret that description as someone who's sad, drunk or maybe mad. It's up to their control.

A narrativist approach could be;

GM: You see a figure up ahead, it's shoulders seem slumped and it's shuffling along. Something about the way it's holding itself suggests to you that he's despairing. You could easily imagine him with tears streaming down his face, totally absorbed in his inner pain.

As GM I've explicitly put thoughts into the the PC's mind that the player will find hard (if not impossible) to erase/ignore. But to an end of painting a picture, more efficiently and hopefully more evocatively and memorably than if I just left the player to guess. A purist might say, "How dare you?! Let me decide what my character thinks". But I feel, if done well (and not all the time), it's a valid approach to getting that book-like experience (in books we're always being told the inner thoughts of the characters)..

First, these have nothing to do in any way with 'narrativism' or 'simulationism'.

Second, this is what I'm getting at when I say the GM has control over what the players think, and thereby the decisions they make. I guarantee I'm going to get a different reaction if I say "You see a child huddled in the corner" than "You see a child huddled in the corner, crying". And since the GM is the exclusive source of perception in most RPGs, they're the only one who can use this technique to guide a player's thinking and behavior.

Quote from: CRKrueger;881697I don't tell my players, "Now you're going to take a piss.",

I sometimes tell my players to "piss off".

#AmIDoingItRight?

Quote from: RosenMcStern;881698Manzanaro, given the evident ill effect of using terms like "narrative", can you explain us in detail which features of "fiction" you would like to emerge from your roleplaying? You said "I want to get the feeling of being in a novel or film, while using only simulationist (better defined as associated, or better even as intra-diagetic) techniques and mechanics". The core question is: what does exactly make the difference between you "feeling in a novel" and "not feeling in a novel".

This would be nice.

Quote from: nDervish;881706But having that context does not require narrative techniques unless you define "narrative" so broadly that it includes everything outside of the actual game mechanics.  And, if you define it that broadly, then it is axiomatically impossible to get what you seem to be asking for - if the mechanics alone are not sufficiently engaging, and everything outside the mechanics is "narrative", then there is no way to add anything outside of the mechanics without using "narrative" techniques.

This seems to be the case.

Quote from: nDervish;881706If you really want to get away from the bickering over what "narration" means, I think RosenMcStern had the right idea.  Stop using that word and, instead, try to describe what you mean and what you're looking for using different words which have not been tainted by association with Ron Edwards' theories.

This would be nice too.

Quote from: AsenRG;881750Consider the above to be saving you lots and lots of reading:D!

This is a great list and I want to marry it.

Quote from: Omega;881848For me an interesting character is one that starts out at or near the bottom and wor...

BOOORING!

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883584I sometimes tell my players to "piss off".

#AmIDoingItRight?

You'd have to ask them.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;883584This is a great list and I want to marry it.

Feel free to, if it's allowed to marry electrons on a forum in your jurisdiction:D! You have my explicit permission to print it out if that would make it easier, too.

Other people can answer themselves the rest of your points;).

Quote from: AsenRG;881954Guys, both of you:
What we're doing ends up with an account of events. That is undeniable, as well as the fact that this is called a narrative.

Actually it's quite deniable, because that's not what happens.

Roleplaying through IC immersion doesn't create an account of events, it creates events the same way people in 1066 created events by living their lives.

The Bayeux Tapestry is an account of those events, David Howarth's book is an account of those events, Patrick Bryant's graphic novel is an account of those events.  What William of Normandy, Harold Godwinson, and Harald Hardrada actually did wasn't an account of anything.

After a Presidential Debate each camp creates a different account of those same events as they construct their narrative of what they want people to think happened.  Those accounts frequently have very little to do with what actually occurred.

As I roleplay my character, I do things in the world.  Events occur.  The next time we play, my character might tell someone else in the world what happened.  At that point, and not before, I create an account of those events (which, like any creation, may be as accurate or as inaccurate as the creator chooses or is capable of).

That's kind of the problem with telling people for 20 years in RPG books that "you and your friends are telling a story" or "you and your friends are inside a movie where you get to say what happens".  It seems a whole lot of roleplayers are locked into the view that what everyone experiences while roleplaying is literally that same as what we experience while reading a book or watching a movie.

Anon, suffice it to say that simulation as a term for talking about RPGs existed well before Ron Edwards appropriated the term and used it to mean "things Ron doesn't like".

People like you sticking to his crappy definitions (or lack thereof) is what makes it difficult to have any sort of interesting discussions without someone jumping in to say that that was not what Ron Edwards meant.

I couldn't give a fuck less what Ron Edwards meant.

As far as the rest of your post, I don't find it to be written in a manner that elicits being read, let alone responded to.

Just as a side note: just how many discussion boards do you patrol in order to spout Forge theory?

Isn't that shit about dead by now? Kind of like this thread was until you jump in and act like a condesending ass with an opinion that is pure fact in your own eyes? Good work bro.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883591Actually it's quite deniable, because that's not what happens.

Roleplaying through IC immersion doesn't create an account of events, it creates events the same way people in 1066 created events by living their lives.

The Bayeux Tapestry is an account of those events, David Howarth's book is an account of those events, Patrick Bryant's graphic novel is an account of those events.  What William of Normandy, Harold Godwinson, and Harald Hardrada actually did wasn't an account of anything.

After a Presidential Debate each camp creates a different account of those same events as they construct their narrative of what they want people to think happened.  Those accounts frequently have very little to do with what actually occurred.

As I roleplay my character, I do things in the world.  Events occur.  The next time we play, my character might tell someone else in the world what happened.  At that point, and not before, I create an account of those events (which, like any creation, may be as accurate or as inaccurate as the creator chooses or is capable of).

That's kind of the problem with telling people for 20 years in RPG books that "you and your friends are telling a story" or "you and your friends are inside a movie where you get to say what happens".  It seems a whole lot of roleplayers are locked into the view that what everyone experiences while roleplaying is literally that same as what we experience while reading a book or watching a movie.

Words, dice, and all the other meaning bearing symbols by which we play RPGs are expressions of imaginary events.

The event is: I rolled a 19. The narrative that emerges is: you hit the guy.

Quote from: AsenRG;881954Guys, both of you:
What we're doing ends up with an account of events. That is undeniable, as well as the fact that this is called a narrative.
.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. A narrative can emerge form events, but it doesn't have to. And a narrative, to me, implies an attempt to imbue some kind of meaning and shape to the tale, rather than just a recording of events that occurred. I would distinguish between a narrative and a chronicle if pressed to explain the difference. When I write my campaign log after a session, I don't think of that as a narrative (historical, literally or otherwise), I think of it more as a chronicle (and something I am doing consciously after the fact, to record the events of the game).

Once again though, I think we are just using metaphors and analogies to help explain what we are doing at the table. I have no gripe with someone calling events in a game story or talking about narrative in terms of play. What bothers me is being told that is what I am doing, or being forced to use a metaphor that just doesn't resonate with me. And this is the sort of thing that arises in these discussions (on both sides) almost always as a tactic to control the language and shape the conclusion. It isn't usually an honest attempt to understand the meaning of words or create a working vocabulary of play, it usually is a product of people trying to tell others they are playing wrong. I don't particularly like telling people who like story, narrative, whatever how to play (to me all that stuff is still roleplaying even if it isn't what I am into). I don't want to force my style (which generally eschews ideas like story) on people. I'll happily share what works for me, I just won't tell people they are wrong if they play by injecting story into the mix. But I also don't like having things swing the other way, where people try to force a narrative playtstyle on others.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883594Words, dice, and all the other meaning bearing symbols by which we play RPGs are expressions of imaginary events.

The event is: I rolled a 19. The narrative that emerges is: you hit the guy.

I think most people here would just call that the judgment, decision or description by the GM. It isn't a narrative yet because it is describing an event that is happening, and the players can still respond. Most of us would call it a narrative when you go back and put frame around it, giving a more structured account of events at the table.

This is important because you are using the word narrative to equivocate on a few different meanings, and it is getting you from "GM speaks about events" is "narrative" to "narratives have some assumed rules" and "we can use those rules to produce better narratives" to "GM should make it a good narrative". And this debate over language is largely necessary because there are elements of what you are saying that even the most hardcore anti-story posters are agreeing with. The battle of jargon is clouding that though.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883594Words, dice, and all the other meaning bearing symbols by which we play RPGs are expressions of imaginary events.

The event is: I rolled a 19. The narrative that emerges is: you hit the guy.

Nope.

Real Life Event
Intent - I want to sink a 3-pt shot.
Action - I take my shot.
Result - Based on my skill and the Laws of Physics, I make the shot.
Narrative - That night at the bar, I tell my friend, "Dude, I just sunk a 3-pointer".

Roleplaying Event
Intent - Conan wants to sink a 3-pt shot.
Action - Conan takes his shot.
Result - Based on his skill and the Laws of Physics (represented by the dice roll and the rules of the game), he makes the shot.
Narrative - That night at the bar, he tells Amala, "Crom, wench, I just sunk a 3-pointer."

Events are events, happenings.

Narratives are accounts of the events created after the fact.
Here's the difference.

During the Event I could have made the shot or missed the shot, but in the Narrative, I could claim I made it.  Narrative is a conscious construct.  Events are not.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;883595Once again though, I think we are just using metaphors and analogies to help explain what we are doing at the table. I have no gripe with someone calling events in a game story or talking about narrative in terms of play. What bothers me is being told that is what I am doing, or being forced to use a metaphor that just doesn't resonate with me. And this is the sort of thing that arises in these discussions (on both sides) almost always as a tactic to control the language and shape the conclusion. It isn't usually an honest attempt to understand the meaning of words or create a working vocabulary of play, it usually is a product of people trying to tell others they are playing wrong. I don't particularly like telling people who like story, narrative, whatever how to play (to me all that stuff is still roleplaying even if it isn't what I am into). I don't want to force my style (which generally eschews ideas like story) on people. I'll happily share what works for me, I just won't tell people they are wrong if they play by injecting story into the mix. But I also don't like having things swing the other way, where people try to force a narrative playtstyle on others.

Amen brother.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;883597The battle of jargon is clouding that though.

I dunno man, his description of roleplaying has the Event be rolling the die.  In other words, the action of the player. He's not even considering experiencing the character.  Players roll dice to determine narrative.  That's more than quibbling about jargon, that's a fundamentally different thought process than roleplaying as some of us here know it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883602I dunno man, his description of roleplaying has the Event be rolling the die.  In other words, the action of the player. He's not even considering experiencing the character.  Players roll dice to determine narrative.  That's more than quibbling about jargon, that's a fundamentally different thought process than roleplaying as some of us here know it.

I think he is jumping between a lot of ideas though. There was a moment where he appeared to just be saying he wanted things to be exciting, and a number of people said they basically agreed that you could have something be both exciting and plausible (and Estar made the point that when you have multiple plausible outcomes there is nothing wrong with going with the more exciting outcome as long as it also makes sense). So I think that there, there is a place where some of what he is saying makes sense. On the subject of Game Event/Dice Roll interpretation=Narrative, I strongly disagree with him. But I feel almost like there is more than one discussion going on here as well.

Again, I am not particularly concerned with how others conceive of these things. If he uses narrative to describe what he does at the table, or he likes thinking in terms of narrative, I am not going to crap on him for it or say he's wrong. I'm only bothered when he tells me that I am always engaged in narrative play or something (when again to me this stuff is really just metaphor and analogy, finding language to describe a difficult thing to explain). Usually that is a red flag that a person is trying to advance some kind of gaming agenda and get others to agree. And here I will agree with you. He seems to be taking things a step further and saying Dice Roll=Narrative so we should be thinking of games in terms of narrative and story (that it is better to play using good "narrative" habits). All that I do disagree with (or at least, I think it is fine if someone wants to do that stuff, but not everyone wants it or needs it). I just feel like there is also another level to this discussion, away from the debate about narrative, where he is saying he wants a blend of things in his games that a lot of people here wouldn't find a problem at all.

Eh, post 18, I responded this way:

• Interesting setting - The characters have lots to do, lots to choose from.
• Interesting NPCs - Whatever they decide to do, there are people who they can interact with that seem actual personalities, not stereotypes or cliches.
• Interesting Enemies - Gangsters, cultists, corporations, nobles, people who have their own agendas, own resources and probably will conflict with the PCs at some point.
• Pull no punches - They play their PCs, you play the world. Play it straight and play it hard.

Post 100 and something, Asen responded this way:

• Create interesting NPCs and require the players to do the same.
• Put them in interesting situations with either no easy or no obvious answers, or both.
• Play out what the characters would do and adjudicate impassively.

You know we see differently on a great many things, but here it looks like we're pretty much the same.  However, there's a clue that shows you in reality it's more likely we got to nearly the same place from different ends of the horseshoe.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883602I dunno man, his description of roleplaying has the Event be rolling the die.  In other words, the action of the player. He's not even considering experiencing the character.  Players roll dice to determine narrative.  That's more than quibbling about jargon, that's a fundamentally different thought process than roleplaying as some of us here know it.

There is no experiencing the character. The character is not real. Just like we don't experience the character when we read a book. It just feels like we do. What is actually happening is that the words of the book are creating an imaginary series of events in the reader's head.

That's what immersion is, and yes, I agree that immersion is a good thing.

Coming at it from another angle, it seems like what you are talking about is the experience from the player side.

What I was aiming to talk about was more along the lines of GM techniques. Surely you'd agree that a GM employs narrative techniques in presenting the gameworld to the players?

I mean, hell, even a lot of old school D&D modules have blocks of text meant to be read to the players, and these often seem to aim for more than mere efficient description.

Tonight I will try to lay out very clearly the way I am using these terms, because I don't think it is as obvious as I initially assumed. But it is a lot simpler than I think some of you are treating it.