Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884175Except 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.

If that's how you've been reading me than maybe it does.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884113Played 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.

Thank you

Well, for the record, I think I did both.

I tried to break down "how to get a good narrative" in maybe three different posts, but I don't remember that there was much or any reply to what I wrote, amid the rush of back-and-forth argument.

I also tried to contribute a couple of techniques or perspectives I thought would be useful, using my best stab at what you meant by "get a good narrative", and I don't remember those being replied to either, amid the rush of pages of back-and-forth argument mainly seemingly about the word "narrative".

Seems like "narrative" is a charged term because of the apparent attitude of certain gamers who aren't even here, who, even decades ago, professed that games which say they're RPGs but replace some to nearly all of the "simulation" mechanics with "storytelling/narrative" mechanics, were somehow better than simulation-based RPGs.

So even though the OP (Manzanaro) seems to not be saying that at all (if I follow rightly, he's saying he'd like to end up with "better" situations/plots (stories?) happening and emerging from his simulation gameplay), the use of the words "narrative" and "simulation" sound a lot like that old issue, and that's what I gather the perpetual furball is about.

Or did I miss something interesting in skimming that discussion?

Quote from: Manzanaro;884176If that's how you've been reading me than maybe it does.

If people don't equivocate, it won't be read that way. I am not going to relitigate this, as we've discussed it a lot. But If people want to switch between substantially different definitions of words in order to advance a particular style of play, or to suggest that something is going on at the table when others just don't think it is, it is going to continue to devolve into these semantic quibbles. If people want to focus on what they want in play, then we'll probably have a more productive discussion.

Quote from: Skarg;884178So even though the OP (Manzanaro) seems to not be saying that at all (if I follow rightly, he's saying he'd like to end up with "better" situations/plots (stories?) happening and emerging from his simulation gameplay), the use of the words "narrative" and "simulation" sound a lot like that old issue, and that's what I gather the perpetual furball is about.

It was the insistence on using the word to describe in game events coupled with seeming to make the case that we ought to be employing good narrative technique in play (because presumably all play is a form of narrative). To me that goes a step beyond someone who is just wants to inject some narrative or story into an otherwise 'simulationist' style of play (because it is getting into the territory of saying narrative is an inescapable thing (plus it is using narrative in a way that I don't think matches the honest meaning of the word, primarily by equivocating). Perhaps I am misreading. But we had a long debate where one side was trying to make the case that because in game events are not real they must be narrative. Then we got a loaded definition of narrative that, when you broke it down, seemed to just be a clever way to describe the act of roleplaying. Perhaps I was being unfair to Manzanaro, but it definitely set off some red flags for me the way he was debating around language.

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?

As a pure simulation*? I don't think you really can, perhaps you can tie it into the background of next series of characters and their goals so it would be part of an ongoing narrative in that fashion

Another approach might to interpret the results by mood and tone with a nod towards making things interesting. IIRC, C-3PO says the odds of successfully negotiating an asteroid field (not to be pedantic about the quote). Failure doesn't have to mean death. They could become stranded in a severely damaged ship, captured or some other interesting but reasonable (by tone) result.

*rules as straight physics

Edit: Satisfying narrative I should say. Unless you and your players are very cynical or into dark humor. Again it depends on the tone you want "And then they all died" five minutes in might be a fine resolution for something in in the vein of Paranoia.

Quote from: Nexus;884188As a pure simulation*? I don't think you really can, perhaps you can tie it into the background of next series of characters and their goals so it would be part of an ongoing narrative in that fashion
s

I think you could do it as a kind of simulation if you stipulated that this was occurring in cosmology where the supreme governing reality operated on storytelling principles. A bit of a cheat though and you'd have to design the entire universe around the idea. It would be a little like The luck of Teela Brown in a way I suppose.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884179If people don't equivocate, it won't be read that way. I am not going to relitigate this, as we've discussed it a lot. But If people want to switch between substantially different definitions of words in order to advance a particular style of play, or to suggest that something is going on at the table when others just don't think it is, it is going to continue to devolve into these semantic quibbles. If people want to focus on what they want in play, then we'll probably have a more productive discussion.

If we played a drinking game about you saying 'equivocate' and me saying 'narrative' we'd both be drunk off our asses on this thread.

I believe I have used my words consistently throughout this thread. I have gone out on a limb to explain myself. Some have understood me while others haven't.

I'm done with that part of the discussion.

Quote from: Skarg;884178Well, for the record, I think I did both.

I tried to break down "how to get a good narrative" in maybe three different posts, but I don't remember that there was much or any reply to what I wrote, amid the rush of back-and-forth argument.

I also tried to contribute a couple of techniques or perspectives I thought would be useful, using my best stab at what you meant by "get a good narrative", and I don't remember those being replied to either, amid the rush of pages of back-and-forth argument mainly seemingly about the word "narrative".

Seems like "narrative" is a charged term because of the apparent attitude of certain gamers who aren't even here, who, even decades ago, professed that games which say they're RPGs but replace some to nearly all of the "simulation" mechanics with "storytelling/narrative" mechanics, were somehow better than simulation-based RPGs.

So even though the OP (Manzanaro) seems to not be saying that at all (if I follow rightly, he's saying he'd like to end up with "better" situations/plots (stories?) happening and emerging from his simulation gameplay), the use of the words "narrative" and "simulation" sound a lot like that old issue, and that's what I gather the perpetual furball is about.

Or did I miss something interesting in skimming that discussion?

I noted your posts and I thought you gave some good advice. I believe I at least mentioned this in passing.

I am just something of a bird dog when it comes to unwarranted hostility and so I have spent entirely too much time with some of the most unproductive posts.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884190I think you could do it as a kind of simulation if you stipulated that this was occurring in cosmology where the supreme governing reality operated on storytelling principles. A bit of a cheat though and you'd have to design the entire universe around the idea. It would be a little like The luck of Teela Brown in a way I suppose.

The version of Simulationist/Simulationism I'm used is similar to this. The players and the rules working to simulate a setting including "narrative" conceits and tropes as well as physical laws. That's how the reality of the setting worked. The "setting" there attempting to simulate can be reality.

Quote from: Nexus;884197The version of Simulationist/Simulationism I'm used is similar to this. The players and the rules working to simulate a setting including "narrative" conceits and tropes as well as physical laws. That's how the reality of the setting worked. The "setting" there attempting to simulate can be reality.

I am suggesting something slightly different. They are not conceits baked into the mechanics, they are baked into the reality of the setting. The would be like gravity: the player characters thrmselves might sense and make use of these elements (i.e. Clearly I am the meant to survive this, as I am the star of gods eye, so the falcon will likely pull through despite the odds seeming to be against it)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884157Krueger 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.

You and me both. But it doesn't seem like people who want to use literary techniques to get a better narrative are listening.

QuoteBut no one would ever suggest we have to have good chronicling techniques to GM.

I've thought about chronicling techniques for better chronicling and narrative techniques for writing a story as both of those are things that I sometimes do after the session is over.

A question I am interested in is what tense I should use for writing (or telling) a chronicle? And should the tense be the same when writing (or telling) stories?

Another is, should I have a dramatis personae at the beginning of the chronicle or story, at the beginning of a major section or arc, at the beginning of every session write up, or not at all?

Quote from: Nexus;884188As a pure simulation*? I don't think you really can, perhaps you can tie it into the background of next series of characters and their goals so it would be part of an ongoing narrative in that fashion

Another approach might to interpret the results by mood and tone with a nod towards making things interesting. IIRC, C-3PO says the odds of successfully negotiating an asteroid field (not to be pedantic about the quote). Failure doesn't have to mean death. They could become stranded in a severely damaged ship, captured or some other interesting but reasonable (by tone) result.

*rules as straight physics

Edit: Satisfying narrative I should say. Unless you and your players are very cynical or into dark humor. Again it depends on the tone you want "And then they all died" five minutes in might be a fine resolution for something in in the vein of Paranoia.

Yeah. I mean I like some movies just fine where everybody dies at the end, but it wouldn't feel much like Star Wars.

I think there can be a lot of confusion when people come to the table thinking, "We are playing characters in a Star Wars movie" or "in an epic fantasy novel" and then expect the world to operate that way, while the GM is thinking, "No, you are in the Star Wars UNIVERSE or a world that is similar to all that fantasy fiction you love to read, but we're just emulating the SETTING, not the narrative principles of the source material".

It's kind of like asking somebody if they want to play a superhero game with them playing as Batman, and then they go to stop a random mugging and I make a few rolls as the GM and say, "Whoops! You just got shot in the head by some random stooge that I didn't bother to name and you're dead." Which isn't going to leave them feeling much like Batman...

But playing in the risk aversive way that simulation tends to reward isn't going to be very Batman like either.

I think that for a lot of heroic fiction genres, you really NEED some narrative rules or mechanics if you want the game to emulate the feel of the genre, even if the mechanic is as simple as some meta damage reducing resource like bennies.

But to tell the truth, now I am talking about stuff outside of my own intended scope of the thread.

I do think that you can play high fantasy games or pulp games or whatever without any rules aimed at emulation of genre (other than the trappings) and what you end up with is essentially a DECONSTRUCTION of genre (i.e. instead of Tolkien you get Fantasy Fucking Viet Nam).

And I LIKE genre deconstructions... but I still want them to be narratively compelling and without resorting to illusionism and all the other crap people tend to be assuming I'm talking about. And this IS the subject I intended in this thread.

Anyway, I do think there are ways to salvage unexpected TPKs. And as you say, just having a dark sense of humor is probably pretty high on that list.

Quote from: Manzanaro;881461So what I thought might be interesting to discuss is tools and techniques for doing this. How do you, whether as GM or player, promote a good compelling narrative under rules of simulation?

I've seen something like "genre emulation" being mentioned as part of the "Sim" category, if you care at all for the Forge model stuff. Is this what you're getting at when talking about narrative?

Now that you've posed this question, I'm wondering whether there are any trad games which actually do facilitate genre emulation. Like, maybe something like Pendragon approaches this.

GURPS? Seems very invested in rules-as-physics, yet, I bet you can find advantages and rules in its vast toolkit to create a decent genre emulating engine. You might have to tweak the combat rules to avoid Tarzan getting killed early (or give Tarzan a gazillion points, haha). I'd be interested in hearing from GURPS-heads (I love the to read the system, but never had a chance to play it).

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;884207I've seen something like "genre emulation" being mentioned as part of the "Sim" category, if you care at all for the Forge model stuff. Is this what you're getting at when talking about narrative?

Now that you've posed this question, I'm wondering whether there are any trad games which actually do facilitate genre emulation. Like, maybe something like Pendragon approaches this.

GURPS? Seems very invested in rules-as-physics, yet, I bet you can find advantages and rules in its vast toolkit to create a decent genre emulating engine. You might have to tweak the combat rules to avoid Tarzan getting killed early (or give Tarzan a gazillion points, haha). I'd be interested in hearing from GURPS-heads (I love the to read the system, but never had a chance to play it).

Yes, I absolutely find genre emulation to be on the narrative side of things and lumping it in with simulation is one of the biggest things I dislike about Forge theory. I mean 'genre' is all about a given set of narrative conventions. Simulation is about the internal principles of the setting. I think my last post hits on some of this stuff.

That being said, I do think that you can emulate genre by tweaking the rules of simulation, but it's always going to be a rough approximation if you don't use flat out narrative mandates like "protagonists can't die" or "villains may always be allowed to escape from custody" with nothing more than lip setvice to the simulation level.