As far as managing frequency goes, I don't think this is a factor if you are actually tracking it on the simulation level.

In other words, if you know one PC's evil cousin, who has info on the PCs long lost father, is an officer in a particular military unit, than it is perfectly legitimate for them to cross paths if the PCs run into that unit, and only natural that you try and exploit the dramatic potential of the situation.

On the other hand, if you just handwave it in on the fly? You aren't FINDING the drama inherent in the simulation, you're manufacturing it, and yeah, if you do this too much it is going to start being seen as forced and inauthentic... Which is exactly what it is (not that this is necessarily BAD, as retcons of this nature are par for the course in plenty of genre fiction if you are looking to emulate genre).

Quote from: Manzanaro;884009As far as managing frequency goes, I don't think this is a factor if you are actually tracking it on the simulation level.

In other words, if you know one PC's evil cousin, who has info on the PCs long lost father, is an officer in a particular military unit, than it is perfectly legitimate for them to cross paths if the PCs run into that unit, and only natural that you try and exploit the dramatic potential of the situation.

On the other hand, if you just handwave it in on the fly? You aren't FINDING the drama inherent in the simulation, you're manufacturing it, and yeah, if you do this too much it is going to start being seen as forced and inauthentic... Which is exactly what it is (not that this is necessarily BAD, as retcons of this nature are par for the course in plenty of genre fiction if you are looking to emulate genre).

Yeah but frequency is still a factor. Depending on how you set things up, how you are tracking and managing things, the frequency is going to vary, and different groups of players will react differently to that. If the party is constantly running into family members and personal plot threads because you've front loaded so much of that content into the setting some groups might find that feels artificial (some might might not). I'm not saying don't do this stuff, I'm saying be mindful of how often it comes up and how that affects your player's immersion (at least for this style of play). Also I just find the potency of these kinds of turns and twist s can diminish if they recur frequently enough.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884003I 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).

Yeah, that's a good point. Do I even need to say "Merlin did it"?

Quote from: Manzanaro;884009As far as managing frequency goes, I don't think this is a factor if you are actually tracking it on the simulation level.

In other words, if you know one PC's evil cousin, who has info on the PCs long lost father, is an officer in a particular military unit, than it is perfectly legitimate for them to cross paths if the PCs run into that unit, and only natural that you try and exploit the dramatic potential of the situation.

Yes and no. If I know said cousin was in the unit, it's fine. But is he in the specific detachment?
Or, as in my example, he joined the 1%ers, fine! But is he in that specific chapter that you met:)?
What I do is borrow a procedure from Mythic, and ask the above question. Call it improvising a random table, if you wish.
The key here is, the players don't know in advance that this is somehow related to their backstory. It's only personal in as much as someone is trying to hurt them, but is it personal, predatorial violence, or is it instrumental violence (or in other words, is the goal of the attackers to hurt you, or to take your money)?

QuoteOn the other hand, if you just handwave it in on the fly? You aren't FINDING the drama inherent in the simulation, you're manufacturing it, and yeah, if you do this too much it is going to start being seen as forced and inauthentic... Which is exactly what it is (not that this is necessarily BAD, as retcons of this nature are par for the course in plenty of genre fiction if you are looking to emulate genre).

What's the difference with a GM that just decides that as soon as you go to another city, a gang the cousin joined moves him there to escape the heat?
I still maintain that the RNG is a more impartial arbiter, though it should be guided by humans in that case. As an example, the cousin going to Timbuktu is a possible result of my d10000 rolls, but the gang he joined doesn't even have a chapter there;)!
Sure, I could find an answer to that, but unless the PCs gave him reason to resort to drastic measures, I'd rather just define only answers that I think are halfway likely.

Quote from: AsenRG;884012Yeah, that's a good point. Do I even need to say "Merlin did it"?


Yes and no. If I know said cousin was in the unit, it's fine. But is he in the specific detachment?
Or, as in my example, he joined the 1%ers, fine! But is he in that specific chapter that you met:)?
What I do is borrow a procedure from Mythic, and ask the above question. Call it improvising a random table, if you wish.
The key here is, the players don't know in advance that this is somehow related to their backstory. It's only personal in as much as someone is trying to hurt them, but is it personal, predatorial violence, or is it instrumental violence (or in other words, is the goal of the attackers to hurt you, or to take your money)?



What's the difference with a GM that just decides that as soon as you go to another city, a gang the cousin joined moves him there to escape the heat?
I still maintain that the RNG is a more impartial arbiter, though it should be guided by humans in that case. As an example, the cousin going to Timbuktu is a possible result of my d10000 rolls, but the gang he joined doesn't even have a chapter there;)!
Sure, I could find an answer to that, but unless the PCs gave him reason to resort to drastic measures, I'd rather just define only answers that I think are halfway likely.

While randomization and laying odds is certainly viable, I also think a lot can be done simply by analyzing the situation in terms of what the GM knows.

Is this cousin actively searching out the PC? Is the PC well known in military circles? In many campaigns PCs become more famous (or infamous) as the campaign progresses, and with increasing visibility it can often make a good deal of sense for threads to converge (and who doesn't love a well handled and sensible convergence?) So yes, of course these things are going to be situationally dependent.

I actually tend to have a lot of fun in campaigns set largely in a limited environment, like a small frontier town, or perhaps a larger city for PCs with power of larger scope. There it becomes much more natural and logical for the assorted elements of the characters' histories to interact.

I also wanted to mention an earlier point that you made and say that, yes, I agree that EVERYTHING shouldn't flow out of the backstory and that random events and new unrelated developments are always good to bring to a game.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884019While randomization and laying odds is certainly viable, I also think a lot can be done simply by analyzing the situation in terms of what the GM knows.

Is this cousin actively searching out the PC? Is the PC well known in military circles? In many campaigns PCs become more famous (or infamous) as the campaign progresses, and with increasing visibility it can often make a good deal of sense for threads to converge (and who doesn't love a well handled and sensible convergence?) So yes, of course these things are going to be situationally dependent.

I didn't say to never apply the GM's judgement. But when in doubt, I roll:).
If I know someone is looking for them, I just roll his Area Knowledge skill vs. the PCs' passive values.
Sometimes, I might have rolled an encounter with a group that includes enemy of the PCs. Then I just roll reaction - and if the unmodified dice say hostile, we can safely assume the guy was in that specific group they encountered. Alternatively, I just roll a "is he in the group", and if he's actively looking, I simply up the chance for a "yes".

QuoteI actually tend to have a lot of fun in campaigns set largely in a limited environment, like a small frontier town, or perhaps a larger city for PCs with power of larger scope. There it becomes much more natural and logical for the assorted elements of the characters' histories to interact.

Sure, then I might waive the roll;).

QuoteI also wanted to mention an earlier point that you made and say that, yes, I agree that EVERYTHING shouldn't flow out of the backstory and that random events and new unrelated developments are always good to bring to a game.

Yes, that's my point. Besides, sometimes they just randomly encounter new hostiles, or even new friends, and I get to make something with that fact that I just learned, myself:D!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884011Depending on how you set things up, how you are tracking and managing things, the frequency is going to vary, and different groups of players will react differently to that. If the party is constantly running into family members and personal plot threads because you've front loaded so much of that content into the setting some groups might find that feels artificial (some might might not). I'm not saying don't do this stuff, I'm saying be mindful of how often it comes up and how that affects your player's immersion (at least for this style of play). Also I just find the potency of these kinds of turns and twist s can diminish if they recur frequently enough.

In my experience, a lot of campaigns (especially D&D style) are the opposite. The PCs are homeless adventurers wandering around with no family and sometimes no roots at all.

By contrast, in my Vikings & Skraelings campaign or my Dragons of the Yellow Sea campaign, for example, the parties were indeed constantly interacting with family members and they felt vastly more simulationist than most adventuring parties. I don't think that it diminished for having done so. Historical/semi-historical accounts of adventures like the Icelandic sagas are full of family.

But of course, a lot of this has to do with the campaign setup. It's not something to suddenly start adding to an established campaign.

Quote from: jhkim;884035In my experience, a lot of campaigns (especially D&D style) are the opposite. The PCs are homeless adventurers wandering around with no family and sometimes no roots at all.

By contrast, in my Vikings & Skraelings campaign or my Dragons of the Yellow Sea campaign, for example, the parties were indeed constantly interacting with family members and they felt vastly more simulationist than most adventuring parties. I don't think that it diminished for having done so. Historical/semi-historical accounts of adventures like the Icelandic sagas are full of family.

But of course, a lot of this has to do with the campaign setup. It's not something to suddenly start adding to an established campaign.

I get that and I wasn't trying to say that. I am not talking about those kinds of campaigns (wandering murderers with no connections). Most of mine feature characters that have connections in the world that do come up in play over the course of the campaign in significant ways. In my last fantasy campaign, one of the players was connected to the royal family and the whole party was working for his uncle (and there were lots of other connections like that). In my last three wuxia campaigns, many of the characters have been married, been siblings, had children, had adventures that dealt with family members who were in peril, had sworn siblings, etc. This stuff can add a lot to a campaign. I encourage it and think it is very helpful. As a GM you have to be careful how you use it though.

I am not making the point that this stuff diminishes it or that you should reduce the frequency of them, in fact I was making a case for including family connections and other things that connect the player characters to the setting. My point was you have to be cautious how much material you squeeze out of this as a GM. If the players are always finding themselves in situations where they have to rescue their father, be betrayed by their sister and have their plans ruined by their hopeless brother, then it can be just as routine and bland as a non-stop combat grind. So I wasn't saying keep interactions with the siblings to a minimum (those ought to crop up naturally in play when it feels I appropriate). I was talking more about situations where there are interactions that lead to big adventures or huge twists (i.e. "your father still lives!", "I am your father", "Your brother was the one who hired the assassins"). I find that one of the more challenging aspects of play (striking the right balance where these characters are coming up enough that they feel like real people but also not allowing that to overwhelm the game).

Yes. I've found that if you have the families, friends, and other connections to the PCs actually be helpful and can provide information or resources, however limited, PCs don't actually need to be "the lone wolf pack". Also, I make sure that they ask for help more than needing to be rescued. Having your niece come up to you and asking to check out their neighbor's farm is far more engaging.

Quote from: Baron Opal;884040Yes. I've found that if you have the families, friends, and other connections to the PCs actually be helpful and can provide information or resources, however limited, PCs don't actually need to be "the lone wolf pack". Also, I make sure that they ask for help more than needing to be rescued. Having your niece come up to you and asking to check out their neighbor's farm is far more engaging.

Side note/fun fact:

Around here, players choose "orphan with no known relatives" background. It's only to be expected that GM will at some point butcher PCs' families to provide "it's personal" plot hook.

GMs rarely do that nowadays, still, plenty of players are already scarred for life.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;884047Around here, players choose "orphan with no known relatives" background. It's only to be expected that GM will at some point butcher PCs' families to provide "it's personal" plot hook.

I think this is the sort of thing the GM has to consider when dealing with PC family members. Obviously butchering the family for plot hooks is an extreme but any time you use the family to spur adventure or involve them in any way, I think it is important to think about it and consider if it is reasonable, fair, etc. You bring in family to enrich the setting to give the players a sense that they have ties to actual people and things that root them to the world. But you can just as easily drive players away from wanting anything to do with family if you are too heavy handed in using them.

Quote from: AsenRG;883996Once 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)"?

An account, i.e. something written, told, or documented. It's not the dictionary definition that is wrong. What is wrong is your understanding of the definition and of the meaning of the word account.

Quote:  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.

Because an account is itself a report or description. Both a report and a description are going to be written, conveyed, photographed, or otherwise recorded. They don't come into existence as the sole result of events occurring.

Quotenoun: account; plural noun: accounts; noun: acct.
1.  a report or description of an event or experience.
2. a record or statement of financial expenditure or receipts relating to a particular period or purpose.

Quote from: AsenRG;883996And 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.

Events just happening are not a narrative. Manzanaro writing down what happened after the fact (as he did there) is a narrative. Events are one thing. Narratives, biographies, accounts, and stories are all a different thing from the events that they record.

QuoteUnnecessary=/=cannot be used.

I didn't say they were equivalent. I said unnecessary implies doesn't need to be used. You know because that's part of what "unnecessary" means.

Quote from: AsenRG;883996Wrong, many things in life are generally known.

Untold, unrecorded, unwritten, and unaccounted history of other people is not "generally known." If they were, there wouldn't be much need for biographies.

QuoteOnce again - you're disputing the example from the dictionary.

Wong. Once again you misunderstand the meaning of words like biography, account, narrative, and record, which are separate things from the events they document.

QuoteAlso, events from an RPG session are known to the participants.

Some events are known. Some are not (like not finding the secret door). Some are forgotten. Some are remembered incorrectly. But all that is irrelevant to the fact that events and narratives of events are two distinct things. And a narrative is not automatically created by the occurrence of an event.

Quote

QuoteNo, 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.

Misunderstand, can't read English. You pick the phrase you like better. In either case, you said using narrative techniques "doesn't work every time."
I said, "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." Those two sentences don't say the same thing.

QuoteUnnecessary=/=cannot be used.

Never said it was. And intelligent people think using fencing technique is a harmful, possibly even dangerous technique to use in dentistry. But since we are talking not about fencing, nor about dentistry, but about playing RPGs, the question is are narrative techniques a winning approach for what you want in your gaming and if so, which narrative techniques are useful and for what.

QuoteWrong  
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.

So as I said, you do want more than to just find out what happens next. You mostly want it outside of play, but you still want something more. Like I said. Can we move on now? Or do you want to contradict yourself some more?

You should avoid semantic discussions in future. In only distracts from any relevant points you might have.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884051You bring in family to enrich the setting to give the players a sense that they have ties to actual people and things that root them to the world. But you can just as easily drive players away from wanting anything to do with family if you are too heavy handed in using them.

I like to include the occasional family holiday. Without ninjas attacking. Including the holidays of the setting helps ground the setting and is a nice way of marking time.

Quote from: Bren;884055I like to include the occasional family holiday. Without ninjas attacking. Including the holidays of the setting helps ground the setting and is a nice way of marking time.

There was this guy I've been playing with... I recall no campaign without him asking the rest of the group about their PCs' birthdays. Then he usually asked about the last birthday party they spent with their families, and so on, and so forth. There have been instances when it led to serious railroad.

It took me some time to stop perceive him as a threat to the story.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883788What I am getting at is: imagine you had played out an RPG that followed the events of Star Wars to a T (assuming the movie did not even exist) but then it ended with everyone dying as you tried to elude pursuit in an asteroid field. The question is would you find this to be a satisfying resolution to the events of play as you experienced it.

Yes. Why not? The only reason not to find it satisfying would be if the disaster had no sensible basis in the scenario, if it was just arbitrary. Presuming that the pursuit ships are deadly, and that the asteroid field is also deadly -- hence the gamble on it possibly throwing off pursuit without killing us -- we placed a bet and (since you mention nothing extraordinary) lost it in a very understandable fashion.

This is a game rather than a story. To find it unsatisfying because I lose would be bad sportsmanship, and I've long since outgrown that.

If there were explicitly a rule that (for instance) we're home free -- "Game Over", basically -- once we reach the asteroid field, then the event would be unsatisfying because it would violate the rule. Cheating tends to detract from a game.

What really matters is whether the game was fun to play, not how it ended.

Quote from: Manzanaro;883779But David realizes it is not possible to actually run the paracosm in which the game takes place under purely simulationist tenets.

We're saved, everyone! Manzanaro is here to instruct us in "purely simulationist tenets!" Once we know what they are, of course, we'll know that we don't really play by them, because it's impossible -- which of course means that we're all really "narrativists" trapped in brain-damaging illusionism.

It's the same line that's been used on the usual sites to claim there's no such thing as a "sandbox" campaign. The Semantic Compliance Universal Militia Brigade Assault Gang Sorties are ever vigilant!