Ah, so Krueger you are basically a warrior on the front lines fighting a valiant battle against impure ideology!

Ha ha ha ha!

Quote from: Bren;883844Rash PCs dying because they tried to do something that had almost no chance of success makes a great story of how the world works and how hubris inevitably leads to tragedy.

If 'they all died in the asteroid field' is not a story you want to get then at the point at which you want the PCs to succeed, despite the odds, to get a better ending to the story you've long since left behind any notion of simulation. That's fine if that's how your table rolls. There are games that let you play that way. To an extent the Force Points in WEG's Star Wars game facilitates this kind of outcome. And the rules are written and intended to get stories like the movies. But insisting you still want a simulation of reality, when you clearly want a happy ending despite the odds is a waste of everyone's time.

Bren talks about emergent theme in simulationist games: mind blown.

Aside from that curiousity? You continue to misread me and add your own assumptions to what I am saying. I do not want a happy ending and you saying I "clearly do" merely shows me that I am not going to be able to communicate with you as you are just going to continue to insist I am saying and looking for things that I am not.

So on that note Bren? It's been real, and it's been fun...

Quote from: Manzanaro;883799Estar, have I anywhere said "Roleplaying games are stories"? Haven't I said that the word "story" absolutely does not apply?

Most of your posts I have actually agreed with and expressed many of the same sentiments in different words.

And yet you act as though I am saying things I haven't said and that I am missing the point, while attributing views to me that I have neither expressed nor hold.

I don't understand it.

Well, look here:).

Quote from: AsenRG;883783Also, and that was just an intent that didn't come to pass, because I wanted to get people to see that they're talking about mostly the same thing - but they're disagreeing almost violently with the terms the other side is using. So it would pay more to do that, if we were to get the thread back on track.

I've been having the same feeling since a post quite a few pages ago:p!

Quote from: CRKrueger;883823Asen, your entire post comes down to..

You see it as narrative, therefore it is narrative, no matter the actual definitions of the term and more importantly, despite people telling you

• they definitely know when they are creating a narrative
• they definitely know when they are experiencing a narrative
• when they Roleplay, they are not doing or experiencing anything having to do with a narrative

And since that's explicitly NOT what my post is saying - to the point that I even wondered how you misread it so much - I'm simply not going to address your post:). The same applies to any further post by you that tries to prove the same: consider it preemptively rejected on the same grounds as the (current) "Gaming den" critics to GodBound (namely, "you either didn't read it, or misread it").
Obviously, that's because you insist that "narrative" means what you think it means, and only that. I'm tired of explaining that no, it doesn't mean only that, and I'm not interested in the use that you actually hate so much, and I'm simply not talking about that!

If you decide to re-read it, hint: a kitchen knife is both a weapon, a tool, and a piece of steel (or at least, of pig iron:D). There's no difference, no spoon, and what it is, depends on how you're using it - not on whether it was crafted by a machine, or by hand. (Granted, very few things in the English dictionary only have one meaning - I almost wish we were discussing it in Bulgarian - but this is a good enough example).

Quote from: Manzanaro;883827Or you are talking about different things.

That's correct, as well as your reasoning;).

Quote from: Manzanaro;883846Ah, so Krueger you are basically a warrior on the front lines fighting a valiant battle against impure ideology!

Ha ha ha ha!

Again, thank you for proving more about yourself than I could ever do.

On a music forum, we can argue about what album was best, what lyrics were best, who was the best singer, etc...

...and then, every once in a while, you get some jackass who comes in claiming that during the Blaze Bayley years, Bruce Dickinson's various projects were the real Iron Maiden despite

• the rest of the band not being with Dickinson
• Dickinson being a replacement singer for Iron Maiden himself
• Dickinson's stated intent of leaving being to try something different

..and then the screaming maniac leaves or suicides by mod (which, considering the rules here, you have to REALLY want to do) or people just stop caring so the flames die down until it erupts again.

Rinse and repeat.  Due to purple's out of control banning, we're doing a lot of rinse and repeating the past couple years.

Quote from: Bren;883844We're not going to agree. A potential narrative has no existence. It isn't a narrative. It isn't anything more than a wish or a prayer.

It's fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree, and I can continue discussing what me and Manzanaro are actually interested in:).

QuoteWe aren't though.

Sure doesn't seem that way.

QuoteFor that sentence to make any sense at all, the two biographies must be comparable. For them to be comparable they must be known in some way to a third person. And since you only live your life, the biographies must be retold to others. Without both biographies being known by being told, there is no way to compare the two and conclude they are different.

...Bren, do you realize that you're arguing about a sentence that I copypasted from the dictionary:p?
Also - yes, you compare RPG narratives after they're being told. "Story is what you have after the session", as Gronan said. Not sure why people are discussing that.
In short, my point is that you can have fun with an RPG session at least twice. First, when roleplaying. Second, when you're retelling it. That's when narrative principles apply most;).

Before the session, you can only set up favourable circumstances for something to happen that would be interesting to re-tell;).
Well, that, or you can go for some narrative mechanics, or decide to railroad - but the thread quite explicitly assumes both of these aren't what we're discussing:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;883852Again, thank you for proving more about yourself than I could ever do.

On a music forum, we can argue about what album was best, what lyrics were best, who was the best singer, etc...

...and then, every once in a while, you get some jackass who comes in claiming that during the Blaze Bayley years, Bruce Dickinson's various projects were the real Iron Maiden despite

• the rest of the band not being with Dickinson
• Dickinson being a replacement singer for Iron Maiden himself
• Dickinson's stated intent of leaving being to try something different

..and then the screaming maniac leaves or suicides by mod (which, considering the rules here, you have to REALLY want to do) or people just stop caring so the flames die down until it erupts again.

Rinse and repeat.  Due to purple's out of control banning, we're doing a lot of rinse and repeating the past couple years.

Great metaphor bro! Spot on!

Quote from: Manzanaro;883799Estar, have I anywhere said "Roleplaying games are stories"? Haven't I said that the word "story" absolutely does not apply?

I am explaining how Narration concept and technique apply to a RPG Campaign. That their use a for a limited specific purpose.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883799And yet you act as though I am saying things I haven't said and that I am missing the point, while attributing views to me that I have neither expressed nor hold.

I don't understand it.

The OP says you want to talk about techniques to make a given RPG Campaign produce a good exciting narrative after it all said and done.

Later you explained that you view the unfolding events of the game in terms of where they are in the ongoing story. And yes that is not the same as thinking as an author does about where the story is going to go and how to structure it. So I am not accusing you of meta-gaming to some desired result.

My point is that by doing that you are setting up yourself to have an inferior experience playing or refereeing a RPG campaign. Why? Because that not how RPG Campaign works. By doing that you are not paying attention to what actually happening.

Either you start playing a game that does allow you to metagame to so you and the players can collaborate on creating a exciting narrative. Or you get your heads out of the clouds and focus on what happening to your character and the best way in the light of the circumstances to achieve your character's goal.

If achieving (or failing achievement) the character's goal makes for a exciting narrative after it all said and done. Great! You have a story to share. If not oh well, you have the satisfaction of overcoming the challenges to do what you set out to do as your character.

As a referee, you can use narrative techniques at specific times to make an otherwise dry consequence of the PC's actions more exciting. In addition you can use your control of generating random events and encounters to influence what the players are feeling at the moment about the campaign. However these methods have severe limits in that if you try to force it in any way the players will spot what you are doing and feel railroaded.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883847Bren talks about emergent theme in simulationist games: mind blown.

It's trivially easy to see patterns. It's what humans do. Seeing a theme after the fact is just seeing a particular pattern. Easy peasy.

QuoteI do not want a happy ending...

Then you should be happy with "and they all died in the asteroid field" as an ending to the tale of those PCs. But everything you post makes it seem as if you aren't happy with that as an ending to the tale (even though that is the ending one is most likley to get in a simulation where the odds are 99-1 against success). You keep talking about wanting to use narrative techniques to get a better outcome.  If you are happy with "they all died" as an ending, just say so. If you aren't happy with it, then say that.

And if you are happy with "they all died" as the outcome of events but you are sad because your players don't cry over their dead characters and you want to describe their deaths in more eloquent terms so that your players cry, then fucking tell us that.

If there is no problem, then there is no problem to solve. And this is pointless, idle chatter. Now if you have a problem then talking about possible  solutions actually makes sense.

Quote... and you saying I "clearly do" merely shows me that I am not going to be able to communicate with you as you are just going to continue to insist I am saying and looking for things that I am not.

You seem to be trying extremely hard not to communicate clearly. Just stop beating around the bush and say what it is you want.

Quote from: AsenRG;883850Obviously, that's because you insist that "narrative" means what you think it means, and only that. I'm tired of explaining that no, it doesn't mean only that, and I'm not interested in the use that you actually hate so much, and I'm simply not talking about that!

Would you be interested in posting a single dictionary source from anywhere to support your definition of narrative since I'm getting it wrong, apparently?

Quote from: AsenRG;883850If you decide to re-read it, hint: a kitchen knife is both a weapon, a tool, and a piece of steel (or at least, of pig iron:D).

You're missing my point.  A Dai-Katana and a machinegun are "tools made from steel".  They are NOT, however, steel.  They are made from steel.  Note the key word made, which implies a conscious and active creative process.  I can mine, process, smelt,and alloy steel for a million years, and never, ever, will I get a Dai-katana or a machinegun without the conscious intent to create one.  Never.  Steel does not make machineguns, people do.That's why people invented the process by which steel is turned into katanas and machineguns.  Because without that creative process, there is no machinegun.

Events in a roleplaying game, likewise, do not create accounts of events, they create events.  Because they don't create accounts of events, they kind of suck at telling stories, which makes sense because by themselves, events don't make stories, people do.  That's why people invented the process by which roleplaying events are turned into narratives within the game.  Because without that creative process, there is no narrative.

• X amount of steel could be turned into a hundred things, each of them different. Steel is not machineguns, it takes a conscious creative intent to transform them.
• X number of paints could be turned into a hundred paintings each one of them different. Paint is not paintings, it takes a conscious creative intent to transform them.
• X number of events could be turned into a hundred narratives, each of them different. Events are not narratives, it takes a conscious creative intent to transform them.

We're practically at the axiomatic level here.

The logic of cause and effect and the English language, don't get changed because you choose to always roleplay while also consciously creating narratives and for some weird reason, insist that everyone else undertakes the exact same separate, conscious, and active creative process that you do when you roleplay.

For all the charges of Ideology and One True Wayism, consider this...

• I fully accept that you and Manzanaro view roleplaying as creating a narrative, and that when you roleplay, you do, in fact, create a narrative.
• You do not accept that when I and others roleplay, we do, in fact, not create a narrative.

Quote from: AsenRG;883854...Bren, do you realize that you're arguing about a sentence that I copypasted from the dictionary

I'm not arguing with the definition. It is what it is. I am arguing with your interpretation of the definition. An interpretation that I see as clearly and obviously wrong.

QuoteIn short, my point is that you can have fun with an RPG session at least twice. First, when roleplaying. Second, when you're retelling it.

Agreed. But the former, my having fun as a player, doesn't have a lot to do with GM narrative techniques. While the latter definitely does.

QuoteBefore the session, you can only set up favourable circumstances for something to happen that would be interesting to re-tell;).

You can set up circumstances. You don't have to. Whether you do or not depends on what you want out of playing the game. Usually, I like to see what happens. Sometimes that is dramatic. Sometimes it isn't. Just like life.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883855Great metaphor bro! Spot on!

It doesn't explain the term narrative, that I did elsewhere, it does, however, explain you to a T.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883823Asen, your entire post comes down to..

You've gone beyond the arrogance of telling someone they don't like what they like, you've moved on to telling them they don't think the way they think.

You no longer are, because you don't respect or even accept the existence of any position other than your own, on this particular topic.

Or other threads. It undermines the times he had some pretty valid points or insights.

Back on other other topic.

We are just going to keep going round and round and round here. At this point its pointless to enguage the OP as whatever you say is either ignored or fed back into the loop of endless repeating that what you played wasnt what you thought you played and its really this term the OP is obsessed with to Call of Cthulhu level of obsession.

Back on main topic.

"Simulation" and "Narrative" are not mutually exclusive, nor inclusive. You can have a narrative with not any simulation and simulation with no narrative. The norm is a merge into whats better known as an RPG. With varying levels of both.

To get a good narrative from a sim is simple and difficult at the same time.

Do not try to force it. If you allow things to flow at their own pace then you tend to get much more enjoyable adventures than when you try to force a certain style, action or pacing.

Sometimes all you are doing is describing the locale and letting the players do their thing. Sometimes you are playing the NPCs and reacting or acting as needed to the events. Sometimes you might skip ahead, or others you might focus. The rules give you the framework to judge when an action works or doesnt. What is and isnt possible within the framework and what can and cant be bent or shaped to needs.

If you write out all that happens after the fact then it often looks like a novel or movie. Take a look at Record of Lodoss War. That is based off the logs of players in good ol BX D&D. They did not set out to tell a sweeping epic. It grew out of the adventures the PCs got into as things unfolded in the world around them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883852...and then, every once in a while, you get some jackass who comes in claiming that during the Blaze Bayley years, Bruce Dickinson's various projects were the real Iron Maiden despite

• the rest of the band not being with Dickinson
• Dickinson being a replacement singer for Iron Maiden himself
• Dickinson's stated intent of leaving being to try something different

It is completely unrelated to the OP, but I think there is a strong case to be made for the opinion that without Harris, Dickinson, and Murray (and possibly Smith as well), it isn't really Iron Maiden. Yes, Dickinson was himself a replacement, but his vocals have come to define a crucial part of the band's sound. I will still listen to The X Factor and Virtual X. It doesn't really quite feel like proper Iron Maiden to me. But the Dickinson Solo albums definitely aren't maiden either in my opinion. And when I go back and listen to Killers or Iron Maiden, while there are some cool songs on them, it always feels like something is missing from the mix. This is just a subjective opinion of course. Some bands can pull off bringing a new singer, some can't. So many fans bailed or sat silently awaiting Dickinson's return when Blaze joined he group that I think there are a lot of people out there who find that line-up not particularly Maideny.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;883872It is completely unrelated to the OP, but I think there is a strong case to be made for the opinion that without Harris, Dickinson, and Murray (and possibly Smith as well), it isn't really Iron Maiden. Yes, Dickinson was himself a replacement, but his vocals have come to define a crucial part of the band's sound. I will still listen to The X Factor and Virtual X. It doesn't really quite feel like proper Iron Maiden to me. But the Dickinson Solo albums definitely aren't maiden either in my opinion. And when I go back and listen to Killers or Iron Maiden, while there are some cool songs on them, it always feels like something is missing from the mix. This is just a subjective opinion of course. Some bands can pull off bringing a new singer, some can't. So many fans bailed or sat silently awaiting Dickinson's return when Blaze joined he group that I think there are a lot of people out there who find that line-up not particularly Maideny.

But, I didn't say the guy argued
BB Maiden wasn't Maiden

I said he argued Bruce solo was Maiden, when for a large number of reasons, including his own words, that simply isn't the case.  

The point of the analogy was "Bruce is Maiden" is the crap that shows up on sites every so often like "Roleplaying is Narratives" does here, and that Manzanaro is just the second coming of Silva

I would agree, however, that the Bruce fronted Iron Maiden, was the lineup at it's best.  Di'Anno Maiden is good, just different. :cool:

Quote from: Omega;883871Or other threads. It undermines the times he had some pretty valid points or insights.

Back on other other topic.

We are just going to keep going round and round and round here. At this point its pointless to enguage the OP as whatever you say is either ignored or fed back into the loop of endless repeating that what you played wasnt what you thought you played and its really this term the OP is obsessed with to Call of Cthulhu level of obsession.

Back on main topic.

"Simulation" and "Narrative" are not mutually exclusive, nor inclusive. You can have a narrative with not any simulation and simulation with no narrative. The norm is a merge into whats better known as an RPG. With varying levels of both.

To get a good narrative from a sim is simple and difficult at the same time.

Do not try to force it. If you allow things to flow at their own pace then you tend to get much more enjoyable adventures than when you try to force a certain style, action or pacing.

Sometimes all you are doing is describing the locale and letting the players do their thing. Sometimes you are playing the NPCs and reacting or acting as needed to the events. Sometimes you might skip ahead, or others you might focus. The rules give you the framework to judge when an action works or doesnt. What is and isnt possible within the framework and what can and cant be bent or shaped to needs.

If you write out all that happens after the fact then it often looks like a novel or movie. Take a look at Record of Lodoss War. That is based off the logs of players in good ol BX D&D. They did not set out to tell a sweeping epic. It grew out of the adventures the PCs got into as things unfolded in the world around them.

Weird post....

So basically "The OP is psychotically obsessive and pointless to even try to talk to, furthermore I agree with what he is saying and will now rephrase it in my own words."

Uh... Thanks?