Quote from: Manzanaro;883779a. If Star Wars had been governed by sim rules rather than narrative rules, you know when Han Solo steers into an asteroid field and C3P0 tells him they have a 99% chance of being killed? Well... The Millenium Falcon very likely would have been hit by an asteroid killing all the PCs on board. Is there a way to make this satisfying as a narrative?

What part of "99% chance of getting killed" is too hard for you to understand?

Why the hell do you assume we give a damn about turning a fair game into a "satisfying narrative" the apparent meaning of which is a rigged story in which the quoted chance must be a lie, there must really be NO chance of getting killed and a 100% chance of getting through safely?

Try to understand this: If we wanted to do that, most of us would just do it instead of farting around with dice and rule books putting on a sham of playing a game.

There's a very good reason that popular movies don't bother with such pretense, which is that it's nothing but idiotic, annoying distraction from the story-telling. Going the other way, a sham game is also unsatisfying as a game.

It's the perfect shit storm of worst of both worlds!

Hey Philip? Just for the record? I find you an uninteresting, hostile, vacuous twat, who couldn't see the point if it was thrust in his eye.

Therefore, don't expect any more comments from me than you are getting from anyone else.

This post represents my own personal opinion.

Manazaro, what types of game do you usually run, genre/setting wise?

Quote from: Nexus;884110Manazaro, what types of game do you usually run, genre/setting wise?

Played anything and everything when I was younger, starting with the blue box version of D&D. More recently I've tended towards horror and superhero games, but I still make forays into fantasy, and have done things with my own setting which is basically a D&D kind of setting where 'adventuring' and dungeon delving is politicized and has more science fantasy elements than most D&D settings.

I also play as a PC about as much as I GM, so I am seeing things from both sides of the table.

Also, I'll note that even though I am talking in this thread about my RPG ideal, which is a simulationist ruleset employed with an eye for strong narrative, I am generally on board with everything from pure simulationist hexcrawls, to pure narrative games like Fiasco.

I just want to know what it is that I am going into. If I am playing Call of Cthulhu, I don't want the GM fudging rolls behind the scenes or manipulating events to arrive at some idealized conclusion. If I am playing a game that seeks to emulate heroic fiction, I don't want to be penalized for playing my character like a character from heroic fiction.

Quote from: Bren;884054An 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.

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.

I told you already - take it up with Merriam-Webster! Because what you're talking about is listed after the definition I am using, "a usually mental record", as in "keeping track of everything you do".

Spoiler

7
b :  a usually mental record :  track

So, a mental record of events is still an account.

QuoteEvents just happening are not a narrative. Manzanaro writing down what happened after the fact (as he did there) is a narrative.

He gave it as an example of what happens at the table. Or is it so important to you that he wrote it on a forum?

QuoteI didn't say they were equivalent. I said unnecessary implies doesn't need to be used.

Right, and I said the exact same thing.

QuoteMisunderstand, can't read English. You pick the phrase you like better.

...in that case, I pick "can't read English".

QuoteIn 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.

You're conflating two different posts. I'm referring to this one.

Quote from: AsenRG;881954We might care or not about the narrative value. If we don't, it's hard to say whether we're applying narrative principles  (if we regularly end up with something worth telling as a story, we are-or at least someone who can influence the game events is, but that could be a player, or the GM doing it unconsciously. Conversely, if that seldom happens, it's likely that you're not - and that you have no flair for the dramatic is likely as well.

Bolded the relevant parts for your convenience.
Obviously if you don't care about the narrative value, you're not going to apply narrative techniques, unless you do it involuntarily. And if we don't see the results of said techniques being applied with whatever degree of consciousness, it's likely that you simply aren't applying them.

"Doesn't work every time" relates to "it doesn't work every time even when you try applying them" (the converse of "sometimes things just happen in a narratively satisfying way when you weren't trying").

QuoteNever 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.

Indeed. Or you should have said, "the question, when not engaging in hair-splitting over the different meanings of words"

QuoteSo 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?

Nope, that is exactly what I said:). The "outside of play" part is, however, important to stress in order to not mislead people - and yes, there were people that missed it. Repeatedly.

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

You're right, I should avoid semantic discussions where the other side is dead-set on proving that their reading is the only possible one, and doesn't even entertain the possibility of being wrong.
In fact, I should probably avoid all discussion with such people. I'll have to consider that one carefully;).

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.

And that is one of the things some people dislike the most of the D&D-style campaigns. On the other hand, being part of a community is explicitly assumed in games like Runequest.

QuoteBy 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.

In fact, it was in all likelihood improved by having that. Historical and semi-historical accounts say that one of the worst things that can happen to people in pre-industrial societies is to be declared out of society (being declared outlaw is a dire punishment).

QuoteBut 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.

Well, it can be added. Generally, if the PCs are successful, they can gain a hold of their own...
Yes, all D&D PCs were meant to stop being "wandering outlaws". In fact, I treat them as people down on their luck, looking to become relevant parts of society by questionable means.
And modeling PCs after such examples also works just fine. After all, conquistadors were just that. But Cortez had a life that would be entertaining to play at the table, and would be fun in a movie! Or take Morgan and Drake as other examples of people who managed the same trick.

I hate to bring this up again, but equivocation. At this point I am not even paying attention to individual positions on the issue, but if you are taking definition A, Definition B and Definition C of a word, to tie the idea back to Definition B of another word, to show something like all X are Y, then that is again equivocation. This is one of the reasons why these arguments from definition almost never work when you are talking about tastes in gaming. If you think narrative technique are cool and want to see more in play, that is fine, advocate for them. If you think RP and Immersion is key, then that is great too, advocate for those things. But arguing the definition of narrative or role-play just to make a case for that approach seems like it never goes anywhere (because no matter how much you argue that a word means a thing, people still want to play the way they want to play).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884152I hate to bring this up again, but equivocation. At this point I am not even paying attention to individual positions on the issue, but if you are taking definition A, Definition B and Definition C of a word, to tie the idea back to Definition B of another word, to show something like all X are Y, then that is again equivocation. This is one of the reasons why these arguments from definition almost never work when you are talking about tastes in gaming. If you think narrative technique are cool and want to see more in play, that is fine, advocate for them. If you think RP and Immersion is key, then that is great too, advocate for those things. But arguing the definition of narrative or role-play just to make a case for that approach seems like it never goes anywhere (because no matter how much you argue that a word means a thing, people still want to play the way they want to play).

Or, you know, Brendan, words actually fucking mean things sometimes, so you don't just accept "orange" or "apple" when what you want is "that yellow thing that's kind of like a plantain".  

No one cares if my entire life I call a banana a rutabaga, but if I want to discuss cultivating bananas I shouldn't start talking to people about rutabagas without expecting them to correct me.

The problem is further exacerbated when, no matter how much proof you show someone that a rutabaga is not a banana, they persist in that definition, and claim that you aren't actually growing bananas, but you've been growing rutabagas your whole life and the entire world is wrong.

The problem is even further exacerbated when other people decide to let that definition slide.

An event that occurs is not the same thing as an account of that event.
It never has been, in any language.
It never will be, in any language.
Period.
Advocating, "can't we just all get along with whatever subjective definition we want for objective fact", increases these types of threads, doesn't decrease them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884153Or, you know, Brendan, words actually fucking mean things sometimes, so you don't just accept "orange" or "apple" when what you want is "that yellow thing that's kind of like a plantain".  


m.

Words do, but sometimes they are also just handy references for an activity or hobby that has a diverse range of styles. I am not saying they don't mean things that is part of my whole point here: people are taking one aspect of word and using that to twist the meaning of it in another instance. I don't buy into arguments that say all events in games produce stories because that to me is a twisting of the meaning of the word stories (and narrative in this instance). By the same token, I don't think games that include those elements stop being RPGs (at a certain point they might but I don't see RPG as a proscriptive term in this case, I see it more as descriptive and potentially expanding and changing over time). My broader point though is we are constantly having this debate over the meaning of the word narrative, role-play, etc. and Almost always, people are making theses arguments about language to set parameters on what is okay or and not okay within an RPG. Personally I just don't like being told how to play by anyone.  And I think resorting to semantic arguments over the meaning of individual words in a term or equivocating over various meanings of the word narrative, are not fruitful.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884153An event that occurs is not the same thing as an account of that event.
It never has been, in any language.
It never will be, in any language.
Period.
Advocating, "can't we just all get along with whatever subjective definition we want for objective fact", increases these types of threads, doesn't decrease them.

Krueger I've basically been arguing this same point the entire thread. People are equivocating on the words narrative and story to argue that you automatically create a narrative or something when you play (which I've consistently said I think is wrong). I'm not saying let's all get along and say narrative can mean whatever it wants. I am saying people arguing the definition of narrative to promote a narrative style of play should dispense with the semantic pretense and just say what it is they want to see in an RPG and why. I'm fine with people liking narrative mechanics, story or whatever. What bothers me is people rigging the definition to say we all actually like it.

Heck, I even pointed out that narrative isn't the only option when you are recounting events. A narrative suggests a certain shape and attempt to build some kind of meaning out of something. Chronicle is a perfectly handy term for recounting events in a game as well. But no one would ever suggest we have to have good chronicling techniques to GM.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884153The problem is further exacerbated when, no matter how much proof you show someone that a rutabaga is not a banana, they persist in that definition, and claim that you aren't actually growing bananas, but you've been growing rutabagas your whole life and the entire world is wrong.

The problem is even further exacerbated when other people decide to let that definition slide.

That is why I have been arguing against equivocation this entire thread.

Hey Brendan, didn't you say a few pages back you didn't want to argue about the definition of narrative? I know I did, and honestly the conversation was better without it if you ask me.

And you know what is nuts? Despite the semantic rage, some people have understood me perfectly...
Weird.

Also crazy? You guys have nothing to say pro or con when people are actually talking concrete techniques that might give you some insight to what we are getting at, but just continue to rage pointlessly as if this thread represents some kind of territorial violation that needs to be pissed on.

I mean, yeah, we're all primates here, but Jesus... If this thread topic doesn't interest somebody why are they obsessing over it?

Quote from: Manzanaro;884166Hey Brendan, didn't you say a few pages back you didn't want to argue about the definition of narrative? I know I did, and honestly the conversation was better without it if you ask me.
.

Yes, I did, but it has been ongoing again for the last several pages, so I weighed in again on the matter mainly to express frustration with the tactic.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884168Yes, I did, but it has been ongoing again for the last several pages, so I weighed in again on the matter mainly to express frustration with the tactic.

It's only "ongoing" in the sense that there are a small group of people raging at the word being used "wrong" even though they seem to have no other interest in the discussion, and the "wrong" usage is completely being understood by any other number of people.

Unless somebody wants to call in a linguistic scholar, I would think it reasonable to just accept that there can be differences of opinion in word usage.

"I live on the second story of.."

"You don't LIVE on a STORY motherfucker!"

"What? No... What I'm saying is I live on-"

"We know what you are saying and we don't need your stinking stories! Stop telling me I'm living wrong!"

Quote from: Manzanaro;884174"I live on the second story of.."

"You don't LIVE on a STORY motherfucker!"

"What? No... What I'm saying is I live on-"

"We know what you are saying and we don't need your stinking stories! Stop telling me I'm living wrong!"

Except I have to point out, you were one of the people using the other definition of story to tell people they were living in a novel and not on the second floor. Doesn't take a linguist to understand that.