Quote from: CRKrueger;884445There'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.

Doesn't this sort of assume that there is such a thing as meaningless death?

Put it this way. Why the fuck would does anyone give a shit why death, of all things, is meaningless or meaningful? The very subject seems to have inherent importance. So it seems to me if you even want to entertain the very notion of a "meaningless" death, you bear the substantial burden of first demonstrating there is such a thing.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884467Doesn't this sort of assume that there is such a thing as meaningless death?

Put it this way. Why the fuck would does anyone give a shit why death, of all things, is meaningless or meaningful? The very subject seems to have inherent importance. So it seems to me if you even want to entertain the very notion of a "meaningless" death, you bear the substantial burden of first demonstrating there is such a thing.

Well, even if a player dies in combat due to a vastly inferior foe, that serves as a lesson, reinforces the feeling of victory of survivors, etc...  Personally, there's nothing wrong with Aragorn dying to Goblin #413.  He died as he lived, with honor defending the free folk against the Shadow.  If he is the last of the line of Elendil, then that page in history has turned, it's time for new men to forge their own bloodlines of kings.  I'd agree with you that character death really isn't meaningless, and defeat and death doesn't have to be unsatisfying.

We have some drastically different ways of looking at the act of roleplaying in this thread, but I'm trying to engage with the premise.

Getting into Genre Emulation though, I'm not even going to bother with that, because I don't play the kinds of games that rely on or expect them.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884373The trick is making those meaningless deaths meaningful. Making the players feel something instead of just being like, "Guess it's time to go back to town and get a replacement character for whatshisface."

If the character's life death is going to have meaning their life should have it. Going back to earlier advice, give the character an existence: a past, goals, connections to the world, personality. Something for the other PC to miss about them aside from whatever material, game elements they brought to "the party" or what have you.

To use Batman as an example, if he was killed by a random thug is some fluke incident imagine the impact that would have on Gotham, the criminal underworld and the "Bat Family". Even the thug that did it life would never be the same (it might be allot shorter as I imagine Joker, among others wouldn't be happy to lose their favorite playmate to some nobody). Maybe he wasn't a nobody to begin with (though that's probably to close to Illusionism for some). How will his almost inevitable unmasking effect the setting?

To the characters in the game, a death is only meaningless if it holds no impact or consequences. To them Batman died doing what he always did, trying to clean up the streets and protect the people of Gotham. The man that killed him didn't have "Thug #4 written on his shirt (barring this taking place in the 60s Batman show ) He has a name, a background. He just killed the Bat so allot of people are now going to be very interested in learning it.

You could get allot of impact and consequences from that death. Admittedly that might no mean much to the player that lost Batman unless they're into that kind of drama.

 

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884390I don't think I agree with this. It would definitely cost them some viewers, but there is a serious debate going on among fans whether killing him would be okay. Not all books or movies follow one character from beginning to end. Many have a character die, or simply become less important, as the focus shift's to another. Having Rick die and focusing on what he built (and the people who followed him) would be an interesting plot twist in my view.

I agree it does vary. Sometimes a show couldn't survive the deaths of certain characters (titular ones among them obviously) but some ensemble shows could and have. Same goes for book series.

For instance, GoT kind of fakes you out (the tv series in particular) making Ned Stark the seeming focus character. Right up until he's executed.

Coming back to the pacing thing, I want to give an example of how I consciously employed pacing techniques in one of my own campaigns. While this may come across as dangerously close to the tooting of my own horn, I think that real examples are probably the best way to convey what I mean by pacing techniques.

Premise: The players played kids (early teens) in a suburban area of Michigan set in the 1980s. This was a horror game, and a very nasty family had recently moved into the neighborhood. This family was essentially composed of archetypal horror figures given something of a new spin. There was what were essentially an unaging undead patriarch, his elderly witch daughter, his massive  and psychotic grandson, and a young pair of 'adopted' werewolf twins who were the same age as the PCs. This family had come to the neighborhood in search of a magical ring that had been lost in the area and that the PCs had recovered, with no realization of what the ring was.

The events of the campaign ended up covering about a year with lots of time skips and transitions.

The Particular Scenario: So what had happened was that the kids (PCs) had gotten wind of the notion that there was something very uncanny about this family and had begun efforts to monitor their activities and find out what was going on.

One of the kids had followed the massive psychotic Gunther out to an old sand quarry and watched in hiding as Gunther sacrificed a goat as part of a ritual to attempt to determine the location of the missing ring.

The problem was that a failed stealth role meant that Gunther looked up from the corpse of the goat and locked eyes on the PC crouched furtively in the bushes. The PC ran.

So now what? Did this signal an oncoming confrontation now that the PC's spying had been noticed? This was the core element of suspense. It arose naturally from the rules of simulation under which we were playing, but now it was a matter of playing up that suspense.


Incorporation of Pacing Techniques: So, I let the players set up scenes in which they discussed what had happened and talked about what, if anything, their next step should be.

I then moved on to a scene of the girl who had been seen spying (Becca) as she arrived home from school: being greeted by the family dog, her mother asking her about school, a brief description of dinner... I used this stuff as a chance to portray the key NPCs in the characters life and give a sense of them as people. But I also used it to lull the player with a gentle sense of domestic routine. This went on for about 15 minutes, and none of the other players were bored. This was stuff you don't tend to see a lot in RPGs and everybody was following it with interest.

And so night falls, and the household is winding down for bed. The PC is helping her little brother finish his homework.

And outside there is a wild yelp of pain from the family dog.

I give the player a chance to react. I relate how the PCs father looks up from his newspaper. The mother starts to speak. Becca climbs to her feet.

And the lights go out.

Breakdown: And people were on the edges of their seats. Even the players not in the scene were highly fucking invested in what was about to happen- which I played out entirely under rules of simulation with no consideration of what I wanted to happen. We played to find out.

Now, I could have bypassed this entire preliminary set-up, and simply said, "Okay, a couple days after the incident at the quarry you are sitting at home one night doing your homework, when you hear a shriek of pain from your dog outside and then the lights go out." But I am quite sure this would not have been anywhere near as effective as the scene actually played out, which was due to conscious thought about pacing and applying that in a way that remained faithful to the terms of simulation under which the game operated.

Quote from: Nexus;884474To use Batman as an example, if he was killed by a random thug is some fluke incident imagine the impact that would have on Gotham, the criminal underworld and the "Bat Family". Even the thug that did it life would never be the same (it might be allot shorter as I imagine Joker, among others wouldn't be happy to lose their favorite playmate to some nobody). Maybe he wasn't a nobody to begin with (though that's probably to close to Illusionism for some). How will his almost inevitable unmasking effect the setting?

To the characters in the game, a death is only meaningless if it holds no impact or consequences. To them Batman died doing what he always did, trying to clean up the streets and protect the people of Gotham. The man that killed him didn't have "Thug #4 written on his shirt (barring this taking place in the 60s Batman show ) He has a name, a background. He just killed the Bat so allot of people are now going to be very interested in learning it.

You could get allot of impact and consequences from that death. Admittedly that might no mean much to the player that lost Batman unless they're into that kind of drama.

On this note, I thought Grant Morrison's storyline in which Bruce Wayne died and we looked at everything that came out of that was the freshest Batman story in years.

But then the over riding narrative tenets kick in and end up trivializing all that by bringing Batman back (as comics so often do). Fucking narrative tenets. I have not been kidding the many times in this thread I have mentioned that i don't want gameplay governed by rules of narrative.

Unless a particular game is actually striving to emulate genre, but that is another subject.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884470We have some drastically different ways of looking at the act of roleplaying in this thread, but I'm trying to engage with the premise.

I've been trying to read the entire thread, but I couldn't even get 20% through without reaching my fallacy limit. Is that what engaging the premise means here? Trying to reconcile dogmatic baggage of simulation with dogmatic baggage of narrative, neither of which are fundamental?

"Meaningless death" is an easy example. Spoiler warning, the death of Derek Reese in the Sarah Connor Chronicles is the exact opposite of what's often thought of as a dramatically meaningful death. It was quick, sudden, out of nowhere, very matter of fact, no special framing. Yet I felt it had great impact precisely because of that.

Similarly, there are authors, including well-known famous ones, who when they write, they are specifically and consciously seeking to free the characters from the tyranny of the narrative. So certain narrative styles are simulations of sorts. Those happen to be the narrative styles I prefer, so as far as the topic here goes, there's little to nothing to it.

Some people have pointed out the difference between RPG as media vs a novel or film. And this is true enough, though it lacks sufficient elaboration. One example of the difference which I find important is that in stories, foreshadowing is important. We've all seen the movies where some strange set of coincidences takes the story in an unlikely direction. The really good ones establish the elements of the coincidence long before they play a role in the story. Failure to do so harms the credibility of the story.

RPGs are different in this way. In RPGs, the rules may explicitly allow for extremely unlikely outcomes. So long as the rules are generally followed and the dice fairly rolled, the rules themselves fill the role of foreshadowing. It allows for effective, dramatic coincidences without them being pre-planned. The medium is quite brilliant in that sense. This allows RPGs to tell stories conventional story-telling media can't tell.

The pattern that needs breaking is the false belief that simply because the RPG does produce stories that wouldn't work as books or movies that those stories are somehow broken and that the RPG fails to produce compelling narrative.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884476Incorporation of Pacing Techniques: So, I let the players set up scenes in which they discussed what had happened and talked about what, if anything, their next step should be.

I then moved on to a scene

Could you be more specific about what actually happens at the table when you "let the players set up scenes" and then you move on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884485Could you be more specific about what actually happens at the table when you "let the players set up scenes" and then you move on.

I doubt it is much different than the way you do it, I am just using a different way of looking at it.

Basically when I ask the players, "Is there anything you want to do over the next day or so?" I am inviting them to set up scenes.

"I want to get everybody together at my house and talk about what happened." tells me to cut the focus to exactly that (assuming there are no intervening events or complicating factors that the players are unaware of).

On the other hand, another player might say something like, "I want to get my dad's woodaxe and start keeping it in my closet." There I might just say, "Okay done," or I might call for a roll or play it out in some fashion. Some of this is based on the simulation I have running in my head, but it also might be based on something like, "The player of this kid wanting to get the woodaxe has been kind of quiet, so let's focus in a bit here and see if we can get him a bit more immersed".

As far as the moving on? Let's say the kids meet up at one of their houses. That is going to largely consist of me just sitting back and watching them talk in character. Once the discussion has gone somehwere, a player might say he thinks they are prepared or otherwise indicate that it is time to go on to the next thing. Sometimes I will do this myself as the GM. If the conversation starts covering the same ground or drying up, I might offer a concluding remark to 'close the scene' (unless a player speaks up and says they have one more important issue or whatever), or I might say, "That is when Joe's mom comes in and asks what you are all so serious about".

I just don't want any one thing to stagnate and get boring, and sometimes players are too immersed to really be aware of these issues (other than to realize they are starting to get bored).

Quote from: Lunamancer;884478Some people have pointed out the difference between RPG as media vs a novel or film. And this is true enough, though it lacks sufficient elaboration. One example of the difference which I find important is that in stories, foreshadowing is important. We've all seen the movies where some strange set of coincidences takes the story in an unlikely direction. The really good ones establish the elements of the coincidence long before they play a role in the story. Failure to do so harms the credibility of the story.

RPGs are different in this way. In RPGs, the rules may explicitly allow for extremely unlikely outcomes. So long as the rules are generally followed and the dice fairly rolled, the rules themselves fill the role of foreshadowing. It allows for effective, dramatic coincidences without them being pre-planned. The medium is quite brilliant in that sense. This allows RPGs to tell stories conventional story-telling media can't tell.

The pattern that needs breaking is the false belief that simply because the RPG does produce stories that wouldn't work as books or movies that those stories are somehow broken and that the RPG fails to produce compelling narrative.

While I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, I wanted to talk more about the idea of foreshadowing within an RPG.

I do think that foreshadowing can be a useful technique to bring to a game, but just not specific kinds of foreshadowing.

What you specifically can't do is foreshadow outcomes because you are not going to be guaranteed those outcomes without railroading towards them, which is bad- or at least decidedy non-simulationist.

What you can do is foreshadow events.

Like, I think it is perfectly valid to, as a GM, say to myself, "This new Duke of the region is a prick, and he is causing a lot of civil unrest that is going to lead to a rebellion, or assassination attempt or whatever" and then decide to foreshadow that by beginning to sprinkle indications of the unrest into overheard conversation and so on.

Or, for a more overt example of foreshadowing, I might decide as the GM that a time approaches when the stars are right and some ancient eldritch abomination will arise from the lost depths of the earth. I think it would be perfectly fine to start foreshadowing this coming development by telling the wizard or the priest about the horrible nightmares they have begun to have... I just can't foreshadow how it will turn out, as I don't know!

And for that matter, it is quite possible that the PCs may take actions to defuse either of my example situations so that it doesn't end up being foreshadowing at all, but I still think it is fair to at least look at it as attempted foreshadowing.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884491And for that matter, it is quite possible that the PCs may take actions to defuse either of my example situations so that it doesn't end up being foreshadowing at all, but I still think it is fair to at least look at it as attempted foreshadowing.

Ditto.

The case of Kubrick's Shining come to mind.

At the beginning of the movie, various people suggest a few different scenarios. Someone says that the hotel was built on an ancient Indian burial site, somebody recalls (if the memory serves) the information about people being cut off from the civilization and had to resort to cannibalism, somebody says about the former employee who chopped his family to pieces...

Were it a RPG scenario, players might pursue some/all of said hints and the GM might decide to abandon his initial plan and push different plot to the foreground (let's say "ancient Indian burial site").

RPG scenarios are a bit like quantum state events - there's always a chance that the adventure won't end as intended and foreshadowing plays a vital part in that.

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.

In some of Clark Ashton Smith's "sword & sorcery" stories, and some of Lord Dunsany's, the adventurers come to dire ends.

The heart of adventure is thrilling peril. Those who survive can tell the tale, and perhaps venture more. But the failures are the context that makes the successes remarkable. If getting through the Potentially Plausible Planetoid Patch or Malicious Magical Maze of Monsters were easy, who would brag about it?

Yeah, that's whatI agreed with.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884445Which is why I don't do it.

Then why did you recommend it? I'm reasonablysure that's not what was asked.

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

Exactly. Now expanding on it would have been useful.

QuoteBut if we start to talk about "meaningful death", sorry, you can't guarantee a meaningful death without someone or something stepping in.

I disagree, but more on the how when I'm not on the phone.

Quote from: AsenRG;884443

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!

I meant that applying the term "simulation" to "genre simulation" would mean that for every aspect X you want to achieve in a game you could say it was an "X simulation" and thus water down the term to be meaningless.

Quote from: CRKrueger;884431Simulation 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.

The world simulation is used in the sense of "aircraft simulator" or "disaster simulation".
Applied to genre it's the wrong term, "genre emulation" would be more appropriate.
So simulation is a fine term, so long as you use it to gain insight into e.g. why dice fudging is contentious.

On the other hand Immersion is too vague a term to be useful (I don't think it really adds anything to the discussion as anything can be immersive) and Narrative is a very misleading term as it describes the purpose of the mechanic rather than the nature of the mechanic and this derails the discussion. It could at its broadest be taken to mean any non-simulationist mechanic, which leads to unhelpful characterisation of character creation as being narritivist.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;884524I meant that applying the term "simulation" to "genre simulation" would mean that for every aspect X you want to achieve in a game you could say it was an "X simulation" and thus water down the term to be meaningless.

The world simulation is used in the sense of "aircraft simulator" or "disaster simulation".
Applied to genre it's the wrong term, "genre emulation" would be more appropriate.
So simulation is a fine term, so long as you use it to gain insight into e.g. why dice fudging is contentious.

Bingo.

QuoteOn the other hand Immersion is too vague a term to be useful (I don't think it really adds anything to the discussion as anything can be immersive) and Narrative is a very misleading term as it describes the purpose of the mechanic rather than the nature of the mechanic and this derails the discussion. It could at its broadest be taken to mean any non-simulationist mechanic, which leads to unhelpful characterisation of character creation as being narritivist.

While undoubtedly one can be immersed in different things, I think that in this thread we have been using it almost entirely to refer to character immersion (which also implies some amount of setting immersion) and I don't think its been especially contentious or difficult to follow.

And as far as "narrative" I think I have been using it in just as straight forward a way as "simulation" but I do understand that it has unfortunate connotations for some.

And as far as character creation being a form of narrative mechanic? Hurm... Are you rolling up your character or designing it?

(Oh, and you won't ever catch me using "narrativist".

Quote from: Manzanaro;884491While I agree with a lot of what you are saying here, I wanted to talk more about the idea of foreshadowing within an RPG.

Sure, there can be appropriate places, even places where it's necessary to a degree. But again, what I've observed is that foreshadowing fills a distinct purpose in a story. In literature, film, or gaming, foreshadowing for foreshadowing's sake is not necessarily desirable. It can often come off as cheesy. So if rules in an RPG largely fill that purpose, foreshadowing is most important when things seemingly go off the rules. The purpose is to keep the audience from saying, "Well, that's just stupid/arbitrary/oh so convenient," and instead seeing how everything is flowing logically from the premises, even when things take an unexpected turn.

Theres one or two RPGs from the 90s that suggest using foreshadowing, reveals and other book techniques. Like actually describing the villain committing some act before the session technically starts, rather than say the PCs uncovering it themselves, or being told about it second hand.

To me as a player a reveal like above is jarring out of immersion unless it is presented as a vision or dream.

Now that said, within world in motion style play you can get foreshadowing for example as the PCs may cross paths or hear rumours of activities well before they actually run into them.

The first trickle of refugees fleeing an advancing hoard, a string of apparently un-related thefts that later prove to have been part of a larger scheme or signs of a thieves guild moving in, riders passing through town or passed on the road, a bard mentioning the dissapearance of some noble. and so on.

Thus moving it slightly out of forced foreshadowing and into something more naturally flowing.