Quote from: CRKrueger;883874But, 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.  

That is a bit silly. I have been guilty of saying that myself, in a sloppy attempt to say it doesn't feel like Maiden without Dickinson. But the distinction is important since Harris' song writing and Murray's playing are so important to the sound.

Anytime I've dipped my toes in a metal forum, I've always regretted it. People think we have arguments about Badwrongfun and use spicy language, but that is nothing compared to what goes on in these places (and in google+ threads about them).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;883879That is a bit silly. I have been guilty of saying that myself, in a sloppy attempt to say it doesn't feel like Maiden without Dickinson. But the distinction is important since Harris' song writing and Murray's playing are so important to the sound.

Yeah, it is silly, my whole point.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;883879Anytime I've dipped my toes in a metal forum, I've always regretted it. People think we have arguments about Badwrongfun and use spicy language, but that is nothing compared to what goes on in these places (and in google+ threads about them).

Yeah it's kind of like Armchair Gamer going to TGD and finding out that we're really not that bad.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883874But, 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:

Welcome to the club.

In the solo gaming group theres a faction that insists that playing a non-solo game against yourself, EG: me-vs-me. Is really playing solo games. Some want to list their 2-x player games as 1 player because you can play against yourself. And the rest of us point out that that is a lie. If we pick up a game listed as 1-x players and its really not then you lied and all hell may break loose.

And so on. About every interest group has that one faction that wants to make whatever term or subject so broad as to have no meaning anymore.

And then they cant understand why everyone else fights them tooth and claw every step.

Or in the OPs case that and increasing frustration of him near constantly ignoring advice and explanations of styles that help generate a more enguaging story from the adventure so the OP can go right back to arguing narrative instead.

My 2 cents:

The most simple way to infuse narrativist / dramatic tendencies into more traditional, physics simulation games, is to make play about what's important to the player characters. Making it so that during char creation the players establish important relationships between their characters, define personal goals, emotional needs, etc. and have the GM during play to poke and challenge those values, preferentially through dillemas that mess with characters relationships and alliances.

In other words, shift the default "external motivations"-based adventures to characters "internal motivations"-based ones. It´s not "There is an orc army approaching and you are our only hope" but instead "there is an orc army approaching and their leader is the only one who knows what happened to your missing brother – do you join forces with them to find it out ? Do you fight him to the death, even if it means never finding your brother again ? How far do you go to find your brother ?"

While most narrativist games use rules to enforce this kind of pattern to varying effects, it's something you can do with most traditional games as long as all players are on the same boat.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883864Would you be interested in posting a single dictionary source from anywhere to support your definition of narrative since I'm getting it wrong, apparently?

No. That falls under the same "trying to prove I'm saying something I'm not" heading, and I warned you I'm not going to try and engage you more on this point:).
When you hear "narrative", it's nearly pointless to discuss anything with you anyway. And you seem to completely ignore, maybe deliberately, the fact that Narrative RPG=/=RPG Narrative.
Besides that, the impression of having to argue for people that expressed vaguely similar points (or actually divergent points) in another discussion, but are being conflated with me because they used a similar vocabulary, is frankly frustrating;).

Quote from: Bren;883867I'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.

You were, AFAICT, arguing with the sentence "although their individual biographies are different, both are motivated by a similar ambition".
That's an example the dictionary provided.

QuoteAgreed. 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.

Yes, and I stated that you can play an RPG without accounting for narrative techniques. No change here.

QuoteYou can set up circumstances. You don't have to.

Nobody said you have to.

QuoteWhether you do or not depends on what you want out of playing the game.

Or you might simply want to maximise the possible enjoyment. So you set up a situation that's loaded with possibilty for PC-like behaviour, and add PCs to the mix.

QuoteUsually, I like to see what happens. Sometimes that is dramatic. Sometimes it isn't. Just like life.

We already covered the "it doesn't work every time" part pages and pages ago. I think it was estar that mentioned it first, but don't quote me.

Quote from: Itachi;883895My 2 cents:

The most simple way to infuse narrativist / dramatic tendencies into more traditional, physics simulation games, is to make play about what's important to the player characters. Making it so that during char creation the players establish important relationships between their characters, define personal goals, emotional needs, etc. and have the GM during play to poke and challenge those values, preferentially through dillemas that mess with characters relationships and alliances.

In other words, shift the default "external motivations"-based adventures to characters "internal motivations"-based ones. It´s not "There is an orc army approaching and you are our only hope" but instead "there is an orc army approaching and their leader is the only one who knows what happened to your missing brother – do you join forces with them to find it out ? Do you fight him to the death, even if it means never finding your brother again ? How far do you go to find your brother ?"

While most narrativist games use rules to enforce this kind of pattern to varying effects, it's something you can do with most traditional games as long as all players are on the same boat.

Absolutely agree.
And the simplest mechanic for that is to make characters that have internal lives, and let them loose in the sandbox. Then they will find their own adventure, and it will matter to them.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883876Weird 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?

1: Thanks! :cool:

2: No. I am saying thats how you keep coming across. It may not be intentional. But the circular nature of the argument isnt helping. A less antagonistic tone might help too. The thread started relatively amiable and posters were pretty open to discussing their techniques.

3: I dont agree with what you are saying. I agree with what you are asking. Which was "How to get a good narrative from a simulation." I am not rephrasing it. Im using the more common way of explaining it.

4: No problem. I still think your question is valid. Though our stypes of DMing or playing may differ on some points or several. Just drop the whole narrative terminology and posters will in general be more inclined to help.

Quote from: AsenRG;883905No. That falls under the same "trying to prove I'm saying something I'm not" heading

When you *refuse* to actually define what you are saying, when asked, you don't get to charge people with being incorrect about what you are saying because "just trust me, bro, you're wrong".
 

Quote from: AsenRG;883905and I warned you I'm not going to try and engage you more on this point:)

Which is wise, considering you could have no effective response to my axiomatic point using real definitions of words.

Quote from: AsenRG;883905When you hear "narrative", it's nearly pointless to discuss anything with you anyway.

When you describe "narrative" to mean something other than "narrative", I see can how you would feel that way.

Quote from: AsenRG;883905And you seem to completely ignore, maybe deliberately, the fact that Narrative RPG=/=RPG Narrative.

Nope, you're seeming to completely ignore, almost definitely deliberately, that the simple act of roleplaying does not create "RPG Narrative" which is specifically why people create "Narrative RPGs" that will.

Quote from: AsenRG;883905is frankly frustrating;)

I wouldn't want to be lumped with Manzanaro either, he's much less entertaining to talk to.

However, as long as you're going to hold to the position that sounds very much like "you are creating narrative when you roleplay, despite claiming to not do such a thing because you don't know the definitions of the terms or your own thought processes" while refusing to clarify that that's not what you mean, well...we're back to Strother Martin.

Quote from: AsenRG;883905Yes, and I stated that you can play an RPG without accounting for narrative techniques.

Sweet.  All you have to now say is that when we don't try to create a narrative, we don't create a narrative, and we're all good.

Quote from: AsenRG;883905And the simplest mechanic for that is to make characters that have internal lives, and let them loose in the sandbox. Then they will find their own adventure, and it will matter to them.

It's interesting that we can agree on what can make for a fun roleplaying campaign, even though we might differ entirely on what the word roleplaying actually means.

Quote from: AsenRG;883905You were, AFAICT, arguing with the sentence "although their individual biographies are different, both are motivated by a similar ambition".
That's an example the dictionary provided.

I am arguing with your claim that a potential narrative is a narrative (or anything at all really) and that a biography is created simply by events occurring. A biography is only created by events being told. To compare individual biographies you have to have two biographies to compare. If the biographies are untold, there is nothing to compare. Therefore the example in the definition assumes that the biographies are, in fact, known, therefore told in some way so that the speaker was able to draw the conclusion that the "individual biographies are different."

QuoteWe already covered the "it doesn't work every time" part pages and pages ago. I think it was estar that mentioned it first, but don't quote me.

You misunderstand my point. My point is, that one can play or run an RPG to see what happens next with no need to make what happens next a better or more engaging narrative. And if that is the case, and I believe that it is, narrative techniques beyond provide a clear description are unnecessary. Clear description is sufficient for the GM to convey what happens next.

Therefore if one (you, Manzanaro, anyone else) wants narrative techniques beyond clear descriptions, then one must not be satisfied with just finding out what happens next. And that's just fine. Many people who play RPGs want something other than or in addition to finding out what happens next. But they don't all want the same things instead of or in addition to finding out what happens next . Which is why I've asked Manzanaro over and over what it is he wants beyond simply finding out what happens next in the simulation.

He hasn't answered. He's refused to answer. Either he doesn't know what he wants, in which case a discussion of techniques to assist him is futile. Or he doesn't know how to say what it is he wants, which makes a discussion frustratingly vague and possibly futile. Or for some reason he just doesn't want to tell us what it is he wants. Which makes the thread pointless.

Quote from: Itachi;883895My 2 cents:

The most simple way to infuse narrativist / dramatic tendencies into more traditional, physics simulation games, is to make play about what's important to the player characters. Making it so that during char creation the players establish important relationships between their characters, define personal goals, emotional needs, etc. and have the GM during play to poke and challenge those values, preferentially through dillemas that mess with characters relationships and alliances.

In other words, shift the default "external motivations"-based adventures to characters "internal motivations"-based ones. It´s not "There is an orc army approaching and you are our only hope" but instead "there is an orc army approaching and their leader is the only one who knows what happened to your missing brother – do you join forces with them to find it out ? Do you fight him to the death, even if it means never finding your brother again ? How far do you go to find your brother ?"

While most narrativist games use rules to enforce this kind of pattern to varying effects, it's something you can do with most traditional games as long as all players are on the same boat.

I think this is some pretty solid advice.

Quote from: Nexus;883938I think this is some pretty solid advice.

It is, but you have to be very subtle and use sparing, a little goes a long way.  The specific setup Itachi provided, for example, is far too obvious and overt.  My players would see that manipulation coming a mile away and mock me for "playing a heartstring solo".  You let them discover things, let them completely decide what matters and what doesn't and just step out of the way.

Quote from: CRKrueger;883941It is, but you have to be very subtle and use sparing, a little goes a long way.  The specific setup Itachi provided, for example, is far too obvious and overt.  My players would see that manipulation coming a mile away and mock me for "playing a heartstring solo".  You let them discover things, let them completely decide what matters and what doesn't and just step out of the way.

It does depend great deal on the group. Mine thrives on that sort of thing so the example would be just about perfect whereas they generally dislike more Sandbox style play. As always it comes down to know your audience. Their backstories help a great deal in this regard as they give me an idea of what they want to develop, hooks and what interests them.

I'm going to drop the semantic side of the discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but just to make myself understood, as there seemed some question as to what I was looking for. However, if my efforts in that department have still left a couple of you baffled, I am going to write that off as a lost cause.

Luckily for me, the majority of you seem to be understanding me well enough.

Quote from: Itachi;883895My 2 cents:

The most simple way to infuse narrativist / dramatic tendencies into more traditional, physics simulation games, is to make play about what's important to the player characters. Making it so that during char creation the players establish important relationships between their characters, define personal goals, emotional needs, etc. and have the GM during play to poke and challenge those values, preferentially through dillemas that mess with characters relationships and alliances.

In other words, shift the default "external motivations"-based adventures to characters "internal motivations"-based ones. It´s not "There is an orc army approaching and you are our only hope" but instead "there is an orc army approaching and their leader is the only one who knows what happened to your missing brother – do you join forces with them to find it out ? Do you fight him to the death, even if it means never finding your brother again ? How far do you go to find your brother ?"

While most narrativist games use rules to enforce this kind of pattern to varying effects, it's something you can do with most traditional games as long as all players are on the same boat.

Yeah, I think this is excellent advice. One problem I have with a lot of sandboxes is that they tend to seem aimed at characters whose primary motivation is to go kill monsters and get money. I don't find that super compelling, and even less so when there isn't really all that much to do with money once you get it.

I want to feel like the events of the game are particular to who the PCs are, and not just some isolated situation that anyone could have wandered into.

Exploring this area a little further: I like games where characters are rolled up, with choices made here and there. To me this is a classic simulationist element and embodies the fact that we do not really choose who we are and our limitations.

I also like systems which generate a few random or semi random background elements for the PCs. For instance, I have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of the old Central Casting series of random background generators. What is cool about these systems, if done well, is that you can get a really wide range of character backgrounds.

So the way this relates to Itachi's remarks, is that, even in sandbox play, if you have this sort of background material you can use it to seed even a sandbox that somebody else authored. Just insert the characters' families, friends, enemies, teachers, and other central background elements right into the sandbox. And then if you put some focus into tracking what these various NPCs have as their agendas and what their goals are, you end up with a complex system of moving elements which very much relates to individual PCs and presents a lot of potential for compelling situations that arise in a natural organic feeling way.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883982So the way this relates to Itachi's remarks, is that, even in sandbox play, if you have this sort of background material you can use it to seed even a sandbox that somebody else authored. Just insert the characters' families, friends, enemies, teachers, and other central background elements right into the sandbox. And then if you put some focus into tracking what these various NPCs have as their agendas and what their goals are, you end up with a complex system of moving elements which very much relates to individual PCs and presents a lot of potential for compelling situations that arise in a natural organic feeling way.

Yep, this is one nice way to implement the idea. Take a look at Mutant Year Zero and Beyond the Wall for games that do exactly what you described by default: Players create together the characters and their community with important NPCs and declare what's important to them (protect my son, win my father respect, be the future chieftain, etc), then the gamemaster seeds its sandbox with elements that resonate with those (threatening/advancing/changing them) and play begins.

There are other ways to do it, too, of course. I think everybody did this at some point even if unconsciously, as this pattern is too ingrained in movies and tv shows. (even if can't remember one right now )

Quote from: CRKrueger;883914When you *refuse* to actually define what you are saying, when asked, you don't get to charge people with being incorrect about what you are saying because "just trust me, bro, you're wrong".

Of course I get to - when those same people failing to get the repeated explanations is the reason I was feeling too tired to bother:). It's actually basic consistency in keeping to my word, once I said that this is what I'm going to do.
Generally, I like arguing with you - it is thought-provoking...on anything unrelated to the word narrative.

Quote from: Bren;883917I am arguing with your claim that a potential narrative is a narrative (or anything at all really)

There's no "potential narrative" in abstracto. When you have something that might be made in a narrative, but you don't know whether it will be told? Yeah, I call the presence of such things "potential narrative".

Spoiler

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams... glitter in the dark near the Tannhouser Gate.
All those... moments will be lost...
in time... like tears... in rain.
Time... to die"

Here's an example of "potential narratives never being realized".

Quoteand that a biography is created simply by events occurring. A biography is only created by events being told.

Once again, do you dispute that English language has a meaning of "biography" that means "an account of the life of something (as an animal, a coin, or a building)"?
Because if you do, you need to bring that with Merriam-Webster;). I'm not going to discuss it any more: that's the dictionary definition. If the dictionary is in needs of an update, get to it - it's your language, not mine:).

Spoiler

Full Definition of biography

plural bi·og·ra·phies

    1
    :  a usually written history of a person's life

    2
    :  biographical writings as a whole

    3
    :  an account of the life of something (as an animal, a coin, or a building)
As you can see, there's no mention of "writing" in the third meaning, from M-W online.

And besides, you did agree that events "just happening" is a narrative. Or at least, you didn't dispute it and called it narrative in your reply. What are you discussing? That a biography is a (non-fiction) narrative? Seriously:D?

Spoiler

Quote from: Manzanaro;881554"I swing at the orc with my sword."
"You hit. The orc is dead."

That is narrative. You are experiencing the narrative of an RPG session as you play it, just like you are experiencing the narrative of a book ax you read it.

Quote from: Bren;881569The above narrative reads like a minimally descriptive interaction that might occur during an RPG session. From context, I assume you find this interaction unsatisfactory. Can you explain what problem you perceive to this narrative? What is it you dislike? What would you want added or changed to make it more to your taste?

QuoteTo compare individual biographies you have to have two biographies to compare. If the biographies are untold, there is nothing to compare.

Wrong, many things in life are generally known. People might know only bits and pieces, or the whole, but never bother to give a full account at once.
Also, once again: the line about "comparing biographies" was the example from the dictionary. I'm simply not interested in comparing the biographies of PCs!
Seriously, "my PC is cooler" stopped being cool long ago.

QuoteTherefore the example in the definition assumes that the biographies are, in fact, known, therefore told in some way so that the speaker was able to draw the conclusion that the "individual biographies are different."

Once again - you're disputing the example from the dictionary.
Also, events from an RPG session are known to the participants. Obviously other people can't discuss them, unless they're retold (just like how both of us are unlikely to ever be able to discuss an untranslated poetry in a language we don't know), but the participants can.

QuoteYou misunderstand my point. My point is, that one can play or run an RPG to see what happens next with no need to make what happens next a better or more engaging narrative.

No, I don't misunderstand it - I've been saying the exact same thing...oh, since several pages ago, including in the post you quoted when this discussion began.
Small wonder that I'm starting to think people are trying to misunderstand my point in this thread, is there:D?

QuoteAnd if that is the case, and I believe that it is, narrative techniques beyond provide a clear description are unnecessary. Clear description is sufficient for the GM to convey what happens next.

Unnecessary=/=cannot be used.
Technique is generally unnecessary in a fencing match. You can just stab your enemy and rely on speed. If you're sufficiently fast, that's a winning approach!
Most people still think fencing technique is useful for fencing matches, though.

QuoteTherefore if one (you, Manzanaro, anyone else) wants narrative techniques beyond clear descriptions, then one must not be satisfied with just finding out what happens next.

Wrong - while playing, after I get in my mental "not-me" zone, I'm satisfied, because when I play, I just enjoy the "being there" feeling. It can be basically a shopping trip.
But in order for me to get in the zone, the events better be gripping for the character. If the character isn't feeling anything - fear, lust, love, hate, fury, confusion, greed, obligation, resolution to accept what happens, the uplifting effect of faith, whatever - it's orders of magnitude harder for me to immerse.
Narrative techniques are usually geared towards putting the PC in situations where they feel something. Thus, in a roundabout way, they help my immersion.

After playing, however, is when I might wish some narrative principles were applied, even if I didn't notice the abscence of them at the time.

QuoteAnd that's just fine. Many people who play RPGs want something other than or in addition to finding out what happens next. But they don't all want the same things instead of or in addition to finding out what happens next .

I quite explicitly said "you may or may not apply" narrative principles in the post you and CRK disagreed with.

QuoteWhich is why I've asked Manzanaro over and over what it is he wants beyond simply finding out what happens next in the simulation.
He hasn't answered. He's refused to answer. Either he doesn't know what he wants, in which case a discussion of techniques to assist him is futile. Or he doesn't know how to say what it is he wants, which makes a discussion frustratingly vague and possibly futile. Or for some reason he just doesn't want to tell us what it is he wants. Which makes the thread pointless.

Funny, that, because I had no issues understanding what he wants since, basically, the OP.
Maybe it's you (and probably CRK) that need to drop out of the discussion, instead? Because me, Manzanaro and Itachi

Quote from: Manzanaro;883982I'm going to drop the semantic side of the discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, but just to make myself understood, as there seemed some question as to what I was looking for. However, if my efforts in that department have still left a couple of you baffled, I am going to write that off as a lost cause.

Luckily for me, the majority of you seem to be understanding me well enough.

I think I might join you in the "No Semantics Club".

QuoteYeah, I think this is excellent advice. One problem I have with a lot of sandboxes is that they tend to seem aimed at characters whose primary motivation is to go kill monsters and get money. I don't find that super compelling, and even less so when there isn't really all that much to do with money once you get it.

Yeah, I've always found that weird. By the point where you can afford to buy a title and land, you should...
Oh wait, that's the endgame in OD&D, isn't it:p?

Still, I think some of my best sandboxes are just "here's a city, you live there, what do you do".

QuoteI want to feel like the events of the game are particular to who the PCs are, and not just some isolated situation that anyone could have wandered into.

As long as you don't overdo it.
You can be subject to a random mugging in a city. You can also be subject to a revenge attack masking as mugging for something you did. If there's only the latter, players would always know how to respond.
To create authentic atmosphere, always roll. Maybe it's a roll for a random encounter. Maybe it's a roll for the odd chance that the guy who's planning to go at you might not get the guts, or might not get there in time, and miss you. Players don't need to know that part;).

QuoteExploring this area a little further: I like games where characters are rolled up, with choices made here and there. To me this is a classic simulationist element and embodies the fact that we do not really choose who we are and our limitations.

I also like systems which generate a few random or semi random background elements for the PCs. For instance, I have gotten a lot of enjoyment out of the old Central Casting series of random background generators. What is cool about these systems, if done well, is that you can get a really wide range of character backgrounds.

That's why I like lifepaths, too;).

QuoteSo the way this relates to Itachi's remarks, is that, even in sandbox play, if you have this sort of background material you can use it to seed even a sandbox that somebody else authored. Just insert the characters' families, friends, enemies, teachers, and other central background elements right into the sandbox. And then if you put some focus into tracking what these various NPCs have as their agendas and what their goals are, you end up with a complex system of moving elements which very much relates to individual PCs and presents a lot of potential for compelling situations that arise in a natural organic feeling way.

This is highly recommended, then:D!
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/132366/Character-Webs
I think the author considers it a narrative tool, but I think it depends on how you use it. Much like a knife;).

Quote from: CRKrueger;883941It is, but you have to be very subtle and use sparing, a little goes a long way.  The specific setup Itachi provided, for example, is far too obvious and overt.  My players would see that manipulation coming a mile away and mock me for "playing a heartstring solo".  You let them discover things, let them completely decide what matters and what doesn't and just step out of the way.

I find this depends on the players a lot. I've been calling a lot of our campaigns lately Sandbox Dramas, because personal PC stuff factors in a lot and the physics of the cosmology and setting encourage these kinds of coincidences (fate in the game is a real thing and a coincidence like the one given above would be seen as relating to fate). I am running two campaigns with the same setting (and there both groups are treading over a lot of similar ground). One group is clearly more inclined toward these kinds of moments, and they crop up once in a while. But the players have laid the ground work in their backgrounds and I've done similar things with my NPCs. In the other group, this sort of thing comes up a lot less. A lot of interesting developments still arise from the PC-NPC interaction but they tend not to be quite as dramatic as that.

So in campaign A, we just paused it to make some new characters at a higher power level (mainly because I want to test some of the higher level mechanics) and we left off just as one of the players found out that her father (who she thought was long dead) was still alive----and the person delivering the news was an NPC who the party basically wanted to execute due to a long history of trying to kill them and harming their allies. But I'd been talking to the player pretty extensively about his character's background, getting all the details right. But it wasn't like this was the only thing going on. It didn't have the feel of a story reaching a beat, because they were dealing with like three other things the players had been pursuing (they were busy forming an alliance between a bunch of different groups, tracking down and securing an important magic statue, and finding their way in and out of a god's realm). To the player who got the news, it was an important and dramatic moment, but it wasn't this monolithic  thing driving the plot forward like Vader revealing he's Luke's father.

I do think managing the frequency of this sort of thing is important. An impending army with a general who has information is cool the first time something like that happens. But if those sorts of interactions occur a lot, they can feel like as much of a grind as endless combat and lose their magic. And anytime yo become too predictable as a GM, that can also unsettle it a bit (i.e. here we go, another NPC who has crucial information who we want to kill but can't).