Quote from: ArrozConLeche;884413Sure. But until you happen to have a PC that survives to complete a full story arc, all that play with your PC is a whole bunch of nothing that ends up being little more than preamble or background color to the actual story.

Then play smart:).

QuoteIf I was looking for techniques, I'd want a guarantee of a story happening with the PC I'm actually playing. adding techniques that achieve less than that would seem a bit half-assed, but that's just me.

And I give no guarantees that it would work, as stated before. RPGs are a collaborative entertainment, it might fail to achieve that even because someone else botched;).
The best you can hope for is improving your chances of ending with something story-like. Of course, given that many genres we play in RPGs are actually episodic, that shouldn't be hard!

Or else, you can add some slight layer of narrative mechnics, but that's no longer simulationist unless you decide that the universe of the game actually exists according to the laws of the genre.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;884421The point here is that it's primarily the story of Rick or Luke . They are the clear protagonists in each series. If either of them were to get killed in what is primarily their story, it would need to be in a fashion that close their story arcs satisfactorily. They can't just be killed by a random mook or at a random moment before their reason for being in the story is somehow resolved. Their stories would still need closure.

Why can't they be killed by a random mook? I get that it often isn't done. But in a show like the walking dead, half the point is a brief moment of carelessness could mean the end. I would agree it would likely be more impactful if Rick were killed in a meaningful way, but it doesn't have to be that (part of the fun of watching shows like that is they aren't as predictable as stuff where you know everyone is safe). In Game of Thrones people die all the time, and it still works. I'd agree on star wars, killing luke is going to have a big effect. But in the walking dead, I genuinely think they plant this doubt over whether Rick will survive in your mind, and part of the reason it's effective is you know things could go on without him.

In a roleplaying game, you only have so much control over these kinds of things. Games grant varying degrees of plot protection (in the form of greater health than others, bennies, etc). But there is only so much a game can do to protect them from the 'death by mook" situation. Unless the GM is cheating, eventually that has a chance of coming up.

My experience is this doesn't make things less dramatic. Again, do what Martin does and take a page from history. People die all the time from things like bacterial infections at really anti-climactic moments (can't get much more mook than that). In a game, you can still squeeze drama out of that if you need. There are presumably characters left behind left to contemplate how such a great hero died at the hand of Evil Guard #2. If they were invested in his character at all, they are going to react in a way that produces engaging results (whether it is a storming vengeance against those responsible, picking up the fallen party member's ideals and carrying them like a banner into the future, etc). It isn't how they die that makes it meaningless, it is how the party reacts.

We had a death like that in one of our last campaigns, where a party member fell through the floor of a sorcerer's skull base. I don't recall all the details, but he basically charged a minion and fell through a hole in the floor. It was a bit silly, a bit anticlimactic (as the big bad had already been killed and they were essentially mopping up). But what made the death meaningful was the party carried his body in silence from the caverns they were exploring back to their home base (about a five day journey). The death still had weight and added to the campaign.

Quote from: AsenRG;884423Then play smart:).

That is still no guarantee. The dice can be harsh masters.

QuoteOr else, you can add some slight layer of narrative mechnics, but that's no longer simulationist unless you decide that the universe of the game actually exists according to the laws of the genre.

Depending on how you define simulationist. I would define genre simulation as simulationist, but not in the sense of rules-as-physics. Still, I'm not ready to go into Semantic War III, so let's agree it's not actually sim.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;884425Depending on how you define simulationist. I would define genre simulation as simulationist, but not in the sense of rules-as-physics. Still, I'm not ready to go into Semantic War III, so let's agree it's not actually sim.

You could define narrative simultation as simulationist ;-)

But in Semantic War III the whole world gets destroyed and the few survivors live out the rest of their miserable existence in a radioactive wasteland.

Quote from: Phillip;884416The example Gronan commonly uses is "The Tower of the Elephant". If Conan had rushed ahead and got killed, it could instead have been the tale of "Prince of Thieves" Taurus of Nemedia.

Without wanting to start the flames rising again, this does point to a difference in playstyles, which affects obviously how people address the premise of the thread.

Are you a hero because you just are and everything that's about to happen is all about you?

Or, are you another person on the face of the world, and become a hero because you accomplish things that cause people to treat you like one?

Howard wrote a story, about Conan, so of course Taurus of Nemedia goes in first, and Conan survives.

On some people's tables, the adventure would have been about Conan (PC) and so either through GM Fiat, or invoking a mechanic, the GM has Taurus (NPC) go first and die, so it remains the "PC's Tale".

On other people's tables, the adventure would have been whoever was there, PC or NPC, deciding who went in first, possibly even arguing over it.  If the PC went in first and died, then the new PC would have heard the tale about how Taurus of Nemedia, Prince of Thieves, raided the Tower of the Elephant.  If not, and the PC lived, then when they went back to The Maul, they could tell the tale however they wanted.

So, how do you get the best of both worlds?  This is what's causing the flare-up of different playstyles doing things differently.  It seems like what Manzanaro wants is...

• No overt OOC mechanics to help deliver narration.
• No overt GM Fiat to guarantee Protagonist's survive and remain Protagonists.
• PC's to not feel like they are Protagonists, but just roleplay.
• Yet, somehow, despite all this, still have the PCs not die from a random arrow shot to the brainpan, and have a great session we'll love talking about in 10 years.

The answer has always been, and I think, always will be, subtle Illusionism.  You cheat.  You fudge here, you fudge there, you don't push, but you gently pull.  You don't put up an invisible wall, you put a shiny in the other direction.  You don't force the players or characters, but you know enough about them both, to know how they're likely to respond. A lot of GMs here could use this technique well, so their players would never know, but they just don't.

So everyone's essentially being asked, I think, (feel free to correct me) "how do you subtly steer things"?  Because whether I believe accounts and events are the same thing, whether I believe story is always now, or by default later unless you choose to make it now, doesn't matter.  No matter my definition of what's going on at my table, I can still steer things for different reasons.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;884425That is still no guarantee. The dice can be harsh masters.
Depending on how you define simulationist. I would define genre simulation as simulationist, but not in the sense of rules-as-physics. Still, I'm not ready to go into Semantic War III, so let's agree it's not actually sim.

Simulation is like Immersion, it needs a modifier.

Simulation of what?  Immersion into what?
Simulation of World is not Simulation of Genre.  Immersion into Character is not Immersion into Story.

Oddly enough, sometimes I think we stumble not over the Jargon, but over the lack of suitably specific Jargon.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;884425That is still no guarantee. The dice can be harsh masters.

I said "smart". Never said "smart" includes relying on the dice:).

QuoteDepending on how you define simulationist. I would define genre simulation as simulationist, but not in the sense of rules-as-physics.

That's actually the part about Ron Edwards three-fold model I like the least. Sorry, genre is part of the narrative concerns, though it's a thin part that can be added almost without watering down the simulation.

QuoteStill, I'm not ready to go into Semantic War III, so let's agree it's not actually sim.

I'm just going to ignore it, as stated before;).
Still, I'm going to agree most "genre rules" are straddling the divide.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;884427You could define narrative simultation as simulationist ;-)

You could, but I prefer the GDS model, and it doesn't define it that way:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;884430The answer has always been, and I think, always will be, subtle Illusionism.  You cheat.  You fudge here, you fudge there, you don't push, but you gently pull.  You don't put up an invisible wall, you put a shiny in the other direction.  You don't force the players or characters, but you know enough about them both, to know how they're likely to respond. A lot of GMs here could use this technique well, so their players would never know, but they just don't.

I almost threw up just by reading this.

QuoteSo everyone's essentially being asked, I think, (feel free to correct me) "how do you subtly steer things"?

Luckily, that's not the question. Consider yourself corrected.

Quote from: Omega;884371Totally off topic Funfact: Tarzan was made immortal by a pill made from freshly squeezed virgins. So hes not going to die of old age. :eek:
Other fun fact: They gave a dose to Jane and Nkima the monkey too... :jaw-dropping:
No. Im not making this up. It happened in Tarzans Quest. To their credit though it was more a pragmatic choice at the end after having put an end to the cult. The pills were made. Why waste them?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic.

I did not know this.

Quote from: AsenRG;884443I almost threw up just by reading this.

Which is why I don't do it.

Quote from: AsenRG;884443Luckily, that's not the question. Consider yourself corrected.

Eh, I answered the original question practically the same as you did, those were really the only answers I think.  

But if we start to talk about "meaningful death", sorry, you can't guarantee a meaningful death without someone or something stepping in. Fate Points, Bennies get used or the GM takes a dive.  That's it.  Otherwise, despite the best of intentions, shit happens, and sometimes it's senseless, worthless and totally un-fun.  

War heroes come back with a chest of medals and get shot in a convenience store robbery.  Champion little league teams get their van knocked over a bridge by drunk drivers.

Sometimes death has purpose and characters die like Leonidas, or Maximus or Katsumoto.  Sometimes a character rolls poorly, the NPC doesn't and a goblin puts one in Aragorn's heart.

There's zero ways to guarantee a meaningful death from a system that doesn't specifically give you tools to avoid meaningless death - the GM has to provide that by fudging.

The answer to all these questions for a World in Motion type of play is good world design, which makes character choice meaningful, so no matter what happens, it will be important to them, but in the end, if you take fudging off the table, Aragorn risks getting one in the eye from Goblin #421 no matter how good your world design is.

There's a limit to how much you can influence when you decide you don't want to influence.

To answer Manzanaro's question on Pacing, it's dependent on setting, like always, for me.

In the Warhammer World, for example, major travel between cities in the Empire is by river where available or by coach.  As a result, you can count on their being Coaching Inns along all major travelways, so usually everyone tries to make it to a Coaching Inn by nightfall, or you're going to get stuck walking or camping in or near one of the forests (which is really one big friggin' forest).  Most PCs I ran tried to get hired by one of the Coaching lines as guards for the trip or else tried to travel with the Coach (if they had horses).

On the road, you could pretty much guarantee meeting a Road Warden somewhere along the trip, possibly other travelers, merchants, etc... of course there was also the threat of bandits and the overarching threat of Beastmen.   So once the players made their plan, it was different amounts of conversation depending on how engaged the players were with the people they are traveling with, and encounters I would roll based on where they were, what time, etc...

I never had to Pace any of these.  If the players wanted to get into a long discussion with one of the travelers about the politics of elector counts, well that's what they would do.  If they were alone, or specifically kept away from the people (which actually might be a pretty good idea in Warhammer if any of them are Nobles) then I'd just proceed.  

• Sometimes I'll roll encounters beforehand and just check off the rolls as I go.
• If the players are alone, I'll ask them if they are emphasizing care or speed and sometimes let them roll if they want.
• In the case of Warhammer, all the Coaching Inns are set encounters, so I know who is going to be there and when (sometimes I'll check to see what the various Road Wardens were up to).  Yeah, I had about 30 Road Wardens statted up and I knew their routes.  So if one ran into bandits, he might be late or have turned back to the closest Inn and not be coming until the next day, whatever.

A lot of the small towns I had situations brewing, things that the players could interact with or not, some of these might come back to bite them, or not.
Even with some of the more time-sensitive situations (like the character's becoming aware of a plot by Chaos Cultists to coincide with the last day of a local festival) the characters always choose their own schedule unless they've actually taken someone's coin.  One group when finding out about danger to a nearby town ignored it because the PCs were Reiklanders and the town was in Talabecland.

As you can probably tell, since the players almost always move at their own speed, if anyone gets affected by Pacing sometimes, it's me, but if everyone has fun, who cares if they spent three days at the Coaching Inn?

In a more wild area, like your standard D&D Wilderness, I determine what the standard procedure for PCs are.  In other words, if nothing changes

• how far are they going to try and travel each day
• how careful about leaving tracks will they be
• are they going to hunt for food or eat what they have
• how far ahead, behind, whatever are the scouts, if any
• general party traveling order
• what is the night watch schedule
• what's their planned route (if they know enough to pick one)

All the stuff you'd figure out yourself beforehand on a camping trip in the wilderness...with Orcs and Dragons.

Again, I know where stuff is, or isn't, how likely they are to run into something, I assign probability and they're choice in the world and randomness determine what they run into.  If something changes, like they hit a stream they didn't know was crossing their route, I'll tell them and let them choose what to do, see if it interrupts or alters their plans in any way, and then they move on.  I don't speed up, or throttle down, I let the players decide their pace, and let them decide how or when to change it.

If I've determined that a group of orcs, if they don't get encountered or stopped beforehand is going to reach and burn a wilderness village in 3 days, then in 3 days the PCs see the smoke of the burning village.

I never tell them something like 4 days pass without incident, unless they're holed up someplace good and 4 days really could pass without incident and they tell me that's what they're doing.

When the players are in control, they'll tend to think their character's lives are interesting no matter what they're doing, kind of like anyone else.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;884411I've lurked for 41 pages...

I agree with you BedrockBrandan about GOT.
Most books have protagonists, you expect them to survive, and if they don't then the author is doing it for effect.
With Game of Thrones it cleverly follows a number of different lead characters, any one of which may or may not die. So in this respect it feels like a traditional RPG - you can have a TPK (The Red Wedding) or a lucky escape from death. Death of the characters doesn't end the book, just as it doesn't end the campaign. This gives the illusion of reality - it's still all controlled by the hand of the author but it feels far more real.

The second observation I've got is that simulationist in this thread was a good short hand for a class of RPGs, which clearly included D&D. But then it was suggested that simulationism => realistic and hence a simulationist game cannot be a game where high level characters can't be one-shotted by a bow, hence D&D cannot be simulationist. But it follows from this that no game is 100% realistic and no game is simulationist. The fault lies is taking a word used to describe something, divorcing the word from the thing it is describing, honing the definition into some quasi-academic definition, and then reapplying the term and finding it doesn't fit what it was originally describing. The canonical example is "D&D is not a role playing game". The terms have then become entirely useless.

Well, if I used simulation as a synonym for realism, what I was getting at is that a mechanic of simulation is not governed by narrative considerations. A rule can be really crappy in terms of generating realistic effects, but still be an example of a rule with simulationist tenets.

And I absolutely agree that no game is 100% simulationist (though I can imagine a game that is close to 100% narrative). I actually don't find it that useful to say "This is a simulationist game" but instead "This is a simulationist mechanic". Another way I find this useful is for looking at individual events within what I have called the 'paracosm' and saying, "Why did this happen?" and I think that you can generally break it down to either "It emerged as the result of a simulative mechanic" or "Because somebody said it happened (narrated it)".

Death in Stories.

Personally, I don't find that death of a character in a story necessarily ruins the story... but it can depending on how well it is handled and whether it feels meaningful.

I think that if you have laid the groundwork for a sense of the gameworld being a real place with real interpersonal connections between characters (both PCs and NPCs) than you are not going to have to search too hard to get a sense of meaning, resonance, and emotional impact even from a death that occurs under circumstances that are not inherently dramatic.

But there are also ways that death (and especially TPKs) can be very unsatisfying. If nobody cares at all about the characters, than their dying is going to be just as boring and lend the entire process from character generation to death a sense of futility and wasted time. Or again, if I think I am playing Batman as being Batman plays out in his native comic books it is going to be unsatisfying to be shot and killed by a thug: "I thought we were playing out a Batman comic, not some postmodernist deconstruction of heroism and violence." in other words, unsuccessful or inaccurate emulation of genre can be unsatisfying; literally failed narrative tenets.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884454Well, if I used simulation as a synonym for realism, what I was getting at is that a mechanic of simulation is not governed by narrative considerations. A rule can be really crappy in terms of generating realistic effects, but still be an example of a rule with simulationist tenets.

And I absolutely agree that no game is 100% simulationist (though I can imagine a game that is close to 100% narrative). I actually don't find it that useful to say "This is a simulationist game" but instead "This is a simulationist mechanic".

Another way I find this useful is for looking at individual events within what I have called the 'paracosm' and saying, "Why did this happen?" and I think that you can generally break it down to either "It emerged as the result of a simulative mechanic" or "Because somebody said it happened (narrated it)".

1 :A good town sim will actually generate a sort of narrative. This might be a "seeding" technique, or it might be a founding dynamics technique, or various other approaches. Everyone has their own ideas on what to focus on.

Aside from the aforementioned d20GW Community rules most focus on setting the stage and then leaving it to the DM thereafter. Sometimes the narrative is tenuous at best.

2: Round-robin has no mechanics, its also not an RPG or a game. It is though purely narrative. A few GM-less systems though pare things down pretty fine while still having the barest of a skeleton. These types though and round robin stack just about everything on the shoulders of the participants. Depending on how much you use the oracles provided.

Heres a fun example from a MUD that was described that has bearing. There was a farmer mobile who wakes up in the morning when the cock crows. Goes about his tasks then wanders town, hitting up a pub and so on before eventually returning home and going to sleep for the next cycle.

If you kill the rooster then the farmer sleeps late and he talks to different people about town due to his changed pattern. And its these little things going on in the background that you may never notice. But they are going on and you might stumble on them. Or in another example. NPCs that remember what you say to them or even notice who else you are talking to in their viscinity.

Some players love that sort of stuff in actual RPGs too. Some detest it.

The shopkeeper who remembers the party members names. The orc with a scar and a grudge that wasnt as dead as you thought last time. Family members that drop in or have lives of their own going on.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884455Death in Stories.
"I thought we were playing out a Batman comic, not some postmodernist deconstruction of heroism and violence." in other words, unsuccessful or inaccurate emulation of genre can be unsatisfying; literally failed narrative tenets.

Thats easy. Just dont play the Question. :hatsoff:

Or. You end up with a "What IF?" or "Justice Lords" scenario where one change snowballs sometimes out of control.

TSR's Marvel Superheroes RPG suggested simply that if an established character dies then either assume you are now in a "What IF?" alternate reality, or the character is brought back to life later, was an LMD, a scrull, whatever fits the outlook of the group.