I always thought of foreshadowing being an event in a story early on that is mirrored in a different event later on, such as shooting the Dog in "Of Mice and Men". I doubt that's an appropriate mechanism to be applied to an RPG.

The term also gets applied to concrete clues and red-herrings to the plot – e.g. this character is nasty so may be about to or have done some nasty act. This is core to RPGs.

It also gets applied to building mood and tension in anticipation of an event, such as a bad storm heralding the villains arrival. This can be effectively applied to RPGs, but I wouldn't overdo it.

Quote from: Omega;884546Theres 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.

That's a pretty terrible idea!

Quote from: Omega;884546Theres 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.

I've actually had players basically play a group of zero level NPCs for an adventure intro, just to play out them being butchered by the big bad evil guy. Once the TPK was complete, we jumped back to them playing their regular characters. How's that for foreshadowing without breaking into narrative?

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

Right. So I think we're on the same page about this. From my perspective, literary techniques, the effective ones anyway, are aimed at addressing the obvious: That this is a story and the author has full control over what happens, so how could we possibly draw any meaning from it? It's all scripted. So the narrative must flow logically, as if it's a simulation of sorts, if the story is to have any impact. It's like Mark Twain said, "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't."

With the RPG medium, we're fortunate to be liberated from a lot of the baggage a fiction author would have. It's a bit boggling that anyone with any sense would want to use RPGs to imitate the very worst aspects of narrative. It's a quaint academic exercise. And I suppose some people enjoy academic exercises. But if a person's stated goal in gaming is to create a great story, I'm going to recommend avoiding so-called "story games" every single time. It's really not what they're good for.

QuoteThe 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.

So when defending "old school" I often find one of the things people trash about it is wandering monster tables. I've always taken the position that wandering monster tables are like the character sheets of the environment. Yes, if there is something big happening in the world, like an advancing hoard, fleeing refugees should start to appear in the wandering monster tables.

Also... not addressed to your post specifically but certainly on topic for the thread, wandering monster checks are a "simulationist" way to control pacing. If players are slowing the game down to a crawl, having long debates at every intersection, listening at every door, searching every wall for secret doors, searching every inch of every room for treasure, searching every corridor and treasure chest for traps, there are going to encounter a lot more wandering monsters if the checks are used. This encourages them to prioritize in order to move along more quickly while still being reasonably thorough and cautious.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884559I've actually had players basically play a group of zero level NPCs for an adventure intro, just to play out them being butchered by the big bad evil guy. Once the TPK was complete, we jumped back to them playing their regular characters. How's that for foreshadowing without breaking into narrative?

Can I ask why you did this? I thought you didn't like foreshadowing?

QuoteRight. So I think we're on the same page about this. From my perspective, literary techniques, the effective ones anyway, are aimed at addressing the obvious: That this is a story and the author has full control over what happens, so how could we possibly draw any meaning from it?

Wait... This is what you feel effective literary techniques are aimed at? Addressing the fact that literature is meaningless? Not that anybody has been discussing techniques particular to literature here, or that this seems to have any other relevance to the discussion, but this strikes me as a very strange view.

QuoteWith the RPG medium, we're fortunate to be liberated from a lot of the baggage a fiction author would have. It's a bit boggling that anyone with any sense would want to use RPGs to imitate the very worst aspects of narrative.

What are the very worst aspects of narrative? And who is the moron that wants to imitate them?

QuoteBut if a person's stated goal in gaming is to create a great story, I'm going to recommend avoiding so-called "story games" every single time. It's really not what they're good for.

Is that someone's stated goal? Who has been talking about story games? Are you sure you are posting in the right thread? Seriously, I believe you now when you say you barely read any of the thread, and that's fine, but responding to stuff that you ASSUME is in the thread is kind of silly. Especially when it is just a total straw man.

QuoteAlso... not addressed to your post specifically but certainly on topic for the thread, wandering monster checks are a "simulationist" way to control pacing. If players are slowing the game down to a crawl, having long debates at every intersection, listening at every door, searching every wall for secret doors, searching every inch of every room for treasure, searching every corridor and treasure chest for traps, there are going to encounter a lot more wandering monsters if the checks are used. This encourages them to prioritize in order to move along more quickly while still being reasonably thorough and cautious.

I'm not sure if punitive combats are the way I would personally want to maintain pacing, but if it works for you then it works for you.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884356Can you give me an example of what you mean when you say you simulate things in advance?

The last ACKS campaign I ran (ended about a year ago, real-world time) ended on (in-game) August 2, 302 AL.  My final notes on the campaign include:


August 3 - Sunday
    - New Varn bandits active at 1513 Valley of Fiendish Statues; recon marginal
August 4
    - 4 gangs of orcs at 1614 Carved Stone Beach; recon misleading
    - Hawks from 1412 hills at 1413 Giant Hut; recon marginal
      - Spotted fleeing the area to avoid wyverns
    - Sarangay (Scarlet Heroes 70; "the burning bull") at 1414 Standing Stones; marginal recon
      - Driven off by griffons which already live there; killed 2 griffons
August 5
    - 3 barrow worms from 1413 Lizardman Crypt take up residence in 1512 Oubliette of Merciful Ice Gods; no recon
    - 7 gangs of goblins at 1414 Standing Stones; no recon
      - Presumably tracking the sarangay
      - 31 goblins vs. 10 griffons; goblins achieve surprise and flee
    - 6 boars from 1412 at 1411 Labyrinth of the Serene Suffering; misleading recon
August 6
    - 12 giant centipedes at 1614 (new site); marginal recon
    - Moose herd moving through 1413; no recon
    - 5 goblin gangs from 1409 village setting up outpost at 1411 Labyrinth of the Serene Suffering; marginal recon
      ### Update ###


This is a mix of procedural generation (encounter tables, etc.) and speculation by the GM (me) about "what are various creatures/groups likely to do?".  The "recon" tags indicate how much information the town's NPC scouts will report on each event, although it's also possible that the PCs could encounter it first-hand if they happen to be in that hex on that date.  The "### Update ###" note at the end is a reminder that the PCs had done something which would affect that event, so (if the campaign had continued) I needed to alter the event details to take that into account.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884364Let's break down the Batman thing and how it relates to what I refer to as simulation.

Simulation is about modeling the way things work by the internal rules of the setting.

What I mean by that is that in setting there is nothing keeping Batman from being shot in the head. He is not magic. He is not faster than bullets.

So why has he never been shot in the head? Because of the narrative rules that govern Batman stories. He has plot protection. This is something that is META to the setting; in other words no character in the DC universe is going to REALIZE Batman has narrative immunity to being shot in the head as this would be what we call breaking the fourth wall. But most readers realize that Batman is not in mortal danger when he jumps some of Two Faces armed goons.

But raw simulation is not governed by narrative rules like characters having plot protection. In a simulation of any level of realism, Batman can get killed by guns.

But what about a simulation with a low level of realism?  Perhaps Batman exists in a reality in which, by using a combination of such things as movement and psychology, a highly-trained individual (such as Batman himself) is exceedingly difficult for an average opponent to shoot in the head (massive to-hit penalties in just about any system) or even impossible for them to connect solidly with until he's been worn down (high-level character in a system using D&D-style HP).  These are things within the setting itself, but also ways in which the setting is highly unrealistic.  If it is possible for any character in the setting to become trained to this level and gain these abilities regardless of narrative significance (thus removing it from the realm of pure "plot armor"), would you consider this a valid simulation?

This is an honest question, not an attempt to trick you into saying that you're using the "wrong" definition.  I'm just wondering whether your concept of "simulation" requires a certain level of realism.  For me, a solid world which honors its own internal rules is sufficient, regardless of how well those internal rules may (or may not) match up to the rules governing the real world.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884360I never fudge dice or established facts (even if the only place they have been established is in my mind as the GM). I think this is core to what I consider simulationist gaming. The dice don't lie and the game world needs to be treated as a solid place. A simulation without integrity isn't a simulation at all to my mind.

I am in complete agreement on this.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;884367What I think phillip might be getting at is that the things you've sort of alluded as being part of a good story (early in the thread) are directly negated by the death of a protagonist. That is, unless you're taking a longer view of story than can be afforded when you're only playing one protagonist.

When I get new players in one of my games, I try to impress upon them that my campaigns are about the story of the world, as seen through the activities of the PCs, not the story of the PCs themselves.  I also encourage them to (collectively) try to develop something greater than their characters within the game world - settling a new landmass; building up a city, business, guild, or other organization; etc.  This is so they know that, if and when a PC dies, the story will go on (since the world is still there) and so that the players will be invested in something that persists beyond the death of their character.

Quote from: Omega;884422In one of Smiths stories not only do the heroes fail to save the day, they fail to save the earth, and the solar system, and the human race may have come to an end. Few others didnt end well for the protagonists either. (Still working gradually through stories as find them.)

Go to http://eldritchdark.com/ and you should find all of them.  

Quote from: Manzanaro;884491Like, 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.

While I do that sort of thing, I don't think of it as foreshadowing, but rather as an essential part of the simulation.  In general, big events don't just happen out of nowhere, they're preceded by smaller events building up to the big one.

Going back to the troll siege I mentioned earlier in the thread, if the PCs didn't even know trolls existed in the area until, one day, a band of trolls descended on the town and started razing farms, they'd likely go "WTF?!?" and/or be (rightly) pissed off.

In my game, OTOH, first they found troll spoor and tracked it to the trolls' cave, where they killed and beheaded two trolls before fleeing.  A couple weeks later, two farmers went missing and were eventually found on the path to the troll cave with their heads ripped off.  The players quickly figured out the trolls must have done it, so they went back and killed the trolls' leader.  The trolls retaliated against another farm, now directly attacking the PCs' territory.  The PCs made yet another half-hearted attack on the trolls.  And then, a few weeks later, the trolls finally laid siege.  When it happened, the players' first reaction was "oh, shit!", but this was quickly followed by "I guess we should have seen that coming."

While you certainly could look at the series of escalating troll attacks as foreshadowing of the upcoming siege, I see them merely as the natural progression of events.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884567Can I ask why you did this? I thought you didn't like foreshadowing?

Got it. You're a hostile idiot. Say no more.

QuoteIs that someone's stated goal? Who has been talking about story games? Are you sure you are posting in the right thread? Seriously, I believe you now when you say you barely read any of the thread, and that's fine, but responding to stuff that you ASSUME is in the thread is kind of silly. Especially when it is just a total straw man.

That part of the comment was not directed at the thread. But even if it were, I demonstrated far more knowledge regarding the contents of this entire thread than you have demonstrated regarding this one single post. Again. I get it. You're an asshole. That's your only contribution. Now that I know, I can just ignore everything you post.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884588Got it. You're a hostile idiot. Say no more.



That part of the comment was not directed at the thread. But even if it were, I demonstrated far more knowledge regarding the contents of this entire thread than you have demonstrated regarding this one single post. Again. I get it. You're an asshole. That's your only contribution. Now that I know, I can just ignore everything you post.

Ha ha! I poked you in your delicate ego

Quote from: Manzanaro;884589Ha ha! I poked you in your delicate ego

If thinking that helps you sleep better at night. To me, this just sounds like classic projection, though.

Only because I think you could use a lesson in basic manners, I'll explain that when you respond to someone's post without first comprehending it, it shows you're not willing to give respect and are thus not worthy of respect yourself.

Of course, even if your aim as such a worthless life form is to poke at someone's ego, it helps if you, again, first comprehend what they're saying so you even know where you're poking. Apparently you're not even good at that. You missed by a mile.

Quote from nDervish:

QuoteBut what about a simulation with a low level of realism? Perhaps Batman exists in a reality in which, by using a combination of such things as movement and psychology, a highly-trained individual (such as Batman himself) is exceedingly difficult for an average opponent to shoot in the head (massive to-hit penalties in just about any system) or even impossible for them to connect solidly with until he's been worn down (high-level character in a system using D&D-style HP). These are things within the setting itself, but also ways in which the setting is highly unrealistic. If it is possible for any character in the setting to become trained to this level and gain these abilities regardless of narrative significance (thus removing it from the realm of pure "plot armor"), would you consider this a valid simulation?

This is an honest question, not an attempt to trick you into saying that you're using the "wrong" definition. I'm just wondering whether your concept of "simulation" requires a certain level of realism. For me, a solid world which honors its own internal rules is sufficient, regardless of how well those internal rules may (or may not) match up to the rules governing the real world

Hmm... This is kind of a tough question to answer. I don't think a rule has to meet any particular standards of accuracy to be considered a rule of simulation; I think it is a matter of intent.

So I may say that under my rules, a person has a given chance to shoot another person, and then I may model all kinds of factors that affect this. And then I also presumably model the damage this does. So its not like I feel that there is some mandatory degree of accuracy to qualify as a rule of simulation.

But I will say that I think it is impossible to accurately emulate narrative principles via rules of simulation. However many Batman comics you read in which Batman leaps at goons with guns, he is never going to get killed (some exceptions may apply but eh) and we as readers are supposed to accept that this is for reasons like you have listed, which boil down to Batman is a total badass.

But the REAL reason he doesn't die is because the authors who write the stories don't write him as dying. We can call this narrative immunity.

But when we look at rules of simulation? If the rules allow for Batman to be killed by guns, than sooner or later it will happen. And if they don't? Than I would call that a narrative rule. Well... Unless NOBODY can be killed by guns under the rules, in which case maybe it really is just a bad set of rules.

I think this is an interesting subject and there is more to be said on it, but I am kind of hesitant because somebody is going to be like, "Oh so you think protagonists should never die!" or some other misinterpretation of my comments that I will end up being lambasted for.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884591If thinking that helps you sleep better at night. To me, this just sounds like classic projection, though.

Only because I think you could use a lesson in basic manners, I'll explain that when you respond to someone's post without first comprehending it, it shows you're not willing to give respect and are thus not worthy of respect yourself.

Of course, even if your aim as such a worthless life form is to poke at someone's ego, it helps if you, again, first comprehend what they're saying so you even know where you're poking. Apparently you're not even good at that. You missed by a mile.

Nah. That wasn't my aim. I just find it funny.

Look, you came into the thread, bragging about how you had not been able to read it and than made a bunch of remarks about how stupid the premise was. You backed this up with a series of poorly constructed comments and got pissed when I poked holes in them.

And then call me the asshole? Try a little self reflection bro.

But yeah, I can sure as fuck be an asshole. I won't dispute that.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884593But I will say that I think it is impossible to accurately emulate narrative principles via rules of simulation. However many Batman comics you read in which Batman leaps at goons with guns, he is never going to get killed (some exceptions may apply but eh) and we as readers are supposed to accept that this is for reasons like you have listed, which boil down to Batman is a total badass.

But the REAL reason he doesn't die is because the authors who write the stories don't write him as dying. We can call this narrative immunity.

But when we look at rules of simulation? If the rules allow for Batman to be killed by guns, than sooner or later it will happen.

Not necessarily. The type of reality that you want to model defines what generates risk. A mook with a gun (or a bow) presents different levels of risk depending on the reality.

In a supers reality, mooks are really just an environmental hazard. As long as you're not stupid and just stand there, Batman is just slapping them around finding out where Two-Face's lair is. Much like a 9th level fighter in D&D coming across 6 goblins. Sure, he might take some hp in damage, but they're not really a threat. They have another purpose.

Now, when Batman gets to the lair, and discovers Two-Face plotting with the Penguin, the risk changes. Either they have the marksmanship to target Batman, their weapons can pierce his defenses, Penguin has a gas umbrella, or whatever, they are foes of a caliber that they present a threat. He might get killed there if he doesn't take the risk seriously. Like a minotaur with some ogre buddies for our D&D fighter.

Just because the fighter can take out 6 goblins doesn't mean he can take out 60, or 600. And, theoretically, the 6 could take him out. But, it would be an amazing run of poor luck or frank stupidity on the players part. Batman doesn't jump out from behind a car and yell "Stop Villian!" to the mooks with fire arms. He would definitely die then. He sneaks about, tricks them, uses a gadget, or some other indirect means that effectively neutralizes the firearm advantage.

John Wick - "But, what if the troll eats your goat?"

Zak Smith - "I guess you roll up another goat."

Part of the game is the risk of failure. What that failure is can be defined in whatever way you want. Character death is certainly a possibility. And, if Batman gets shot according to the rules, then that's how it goes. As was mentioned before, I think that taking the long view of the campaign is best if the level of risk is uniformly high. The adventures continue with the Shadow filling the Justice League vacancy.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884559I'm going to recommend avoiding so-called "story games" every single time. It's really not what they're good for.

So when defending "old school" I often find one of the things people trash about it is wandering monster tables.

Also... not addressed to your post specifically but certainly on topic for the thread, wandering monster checks are a "simulationist" way to control pacing. If players are slowing the game down to a crawl, having long debates at every intersection, listening at every door, searching every wall for secret doors, searching every inch of every room for treasure, searching every corridor and treasure chest for traps, there are going to encounter a lot more wandering monsters if the checks are used. This encourages them to prioritize in order to move along more quickly while still being reasonably thorough and cautious.

1: There are some ok storygames out there. There are also alot of overwrought messes that tale 200 pages to tell you "make stuff up as you go" and how brilliant the designer is for enlightening you into the holy glory of true role playing instead of that filthy old role playing. Sorting out the nuts from the fruits can be tricky.

2: Least in AD&D wandering monsters checks and even what was encountered were fully under the thumb of the DM. Dont know if 2e changed that or not. But alot of detractors and even more supporters totally ignore that little fact. Or the fact that the encounters were not automatically hostile. Least outdoors. Dungeons tended to be a little harsher. Interesting note is that many modules dont use wandering monster encounters, or use them sparingly and tailored to the locale.

3: As Gary and others have pointed out way back. The wandering monster tables are a tool. But what works better are things like monsters on patrol routes, or going from point A to B, in general having a purpose. Or using the aforementioned tailored tables for a locale.

One thing that surprised me in 5e D&D was that tailored wandering encounter tables are now the norm. Which I think is a good thing overall.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884567I'm not sure if punitive combats are the way I would personally want to maintain pacing, but if it works for you then it works for you.

Its not punitive. It is cause and effect. The more you dally and waste time. The more likely somethings going to chance upon you. A chance for an encounter is a sort of pacing tool. And as noted above. Not all encounters are necessarily hostile, even in a dungeon.

Used well its also a reminder to the players that the world is in motion and they are not acting in a bubble of time where they can goof off forever. You thought you could bang on every wall and tile and no one would notice ever?

Normal dungeon movement is slow because the characters are naturally both moving as quietly as possible and testing for traps automatically. Delaying to say test every 10 ft manually means you are possibly taking longer and not as quiet.

Though yes it can be punitive to players who for whatever reason think they have to manually check everything. Though personally I do not like that method. Its easier to just say "Look. This is not gaining anything and you are putting the group at risk. There are no rings hidden under random tiles and ." and so on. "I do not hide stuff under random tiles." is part of my standard introductory DM speech.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;884558That's a pretty terrible idea!

Depends on the group. Our WEG Star Wars GM used it to good effect and I have a few times too.

Quote from: Omega;884625Its not punitive. It is cause and effect. The more you dally and waste time. The more likely somethings going to chance upon you. A chance for an encounter is a sort of pacing tool. And as noted above. Not all encounters are necessarily hostile, even in a dungeon.

Used well its also a reminder to the players that the world is in motion and they are not acting in a bubble of time where they can goof off forever. You thought you could bang on every wall and tile and no one would notice ever?

Normal dungeon movement is slow because the characters are naturally both moving as quietly as possible and testing for traps automatically. Delaying to say test every 10 ft manually means you are possibly taking longer and not as quiet.

Though yes it can be punitive to players who for whatever reason think they have to manually check everything. Though personally I do not like that method. Its easier to just say "Look. This is not gaining anything and you are putting the group at risk. There are no rings hidden under random tiles and ." and so on. "I do not hide stuff under random tiles." is part of my standard introductory DM speech.

Let's say you time the player discussion and say, "It's been half an hour so it's time for a wandering monster check". I would agree that is cause and effect.

But on the other hand, if you say "I don't like listening to them argue so it's time for a wandering monster check", than that sounds punitive.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884681Let's say you time the player discussion and say, "It's been half an hour so it's time for a wandering monster check". I would agree that is cause and effect.

But on the other hand, if you say "I don't like listening to them argue so it's time for a wandering monster check", than that sounds punitive.

Yeah I do not believe in that. The old "punishment by monster will teach em!" gag fails far more often than it succeeds because theres no warning, no admonishment, and nothing learned other than a wandering monster appeared.

Its easier to just speak up and ask them to stop stalling or if it looks like its escalating to not-RPing then flat out put an end to it. Why so many DMs find it impossible to just say. "Reign it in! That is getting excessive!" but are perfectly fine with "teaching the player a lesson" by having their character killed. Yeah they learned a lesson all right. The DM is a dick for no apparent reason.