Quote from: Manzanaro;884593But I will say that I think it is impossible to accurately emulate narrative principles via rules of simulation.

In general, I agree.  My thought was more that, given the right reality/set of world-rules, you can arrive at an end result via simulation which happens to look a lot like (certain) narrative principles are in force.

(I say "in general" because of settings like Discworld, which are explicitly run on narrative principles and the characters are aware of this.  Accurately simulating Discworld would, therefore, necessarily include the use of narrative principles.)

Quote from: Manzanaro;884593I 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.

For what it's worth, I think it was a fair and very reasonable answer.  Thanks!

Quote from: nDervish;884732In general, I agree.  My thought was more that, given the right reality/set of world-rules, you can arrive at an end result via simulation which happens to look a lot like (certain) narrative principles are in force.

The problem is how exactly to do this. Let's say we decide to model Batman's seeming durability by giving him a shitload of HP ( which I believe was an earlier suggestion you made). This models SOME circumstances fairly well, but it also means you could put a gun in Batman's mouth and he would be like, "Screw you, I have 80 hp."

As long as we are on the subject of genre simulation? I think the best way to handle meta stuff like plot immunity is going to be meta to the rules of simulation. Basically, you let the player have the narrative authority to say, " You know that crit you rolled on me with Two Faces goon? That didn't happen." But then you regulate the usage of this authority by attaching it to a meta resource, and of course this is just what things like bennies and Fate points and etc are for.

While games that use these kind of meta systems for staying close to genre lines aren't the territory I wanted to talk about in this thread, they don't really bother me... unless the meta resources actually become the focus of gameplay (as they seem to do in most Fate derivatives for example). I prefer games in which meta mechanic usage is VERY rare, rather than a staple of gameplay.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884772The problem is how exactly to do this. Let's say we decide to model Batman's seeming durability by giving him a shitload of HP ( which I believe was an earlier suggestion you made). This models SOME circumstances fairly well, but it also means you could put a gun in Batman's mouth and he would be like, "Screw you, I have 80 hp."

As long as we are on the subject of genre simulation? I think the best way to handle meta stuff like plot immunity

1: This is a slightly absurd assumption on both HP (and, again, Badman) If you have successfully gotten a gun in Batmans mouth then either A: Hes down to his last HP. or B: hes about to take it from you, before you can pull the trigger, and then beat all YOUR HP out of you. or C: its an insta-kill no matter what your HP at that point. or D: You never even got that far and are actually lying unconcious on the floor.

2: Except that there is no plot immunity as has been pointed out before. You seem to obsess a little with this. Once again. Batman survives most of his battles because of his intense training, skill, and suit. As well as usually being up against un-trained mooks with guns who are often terrified of this guy. Further throwing off aim at a usually very mobile target.

Once again lets point out that you are using as an example of someone being shot. One of the most highly trained non-metas in DC. And even he has been taken out and retired for a time. And again point out that other characters, long runners, have died and stayed dead (so far), or at least been gone a year or two and presumed dead.

Instead lets look at something like DCs Bloodlines heroes. Out of 20 or more new heroes, less than five have survived intact. And of those slain have not been seen again. Some "plot immunity".

Comic books are essentially novels and so tend to be impossible to reconcile with standard RPG tenants like impending death at every step without having to bend the rules heavily to fit some perceived notion of "plot immunity" (I really despise that stupid over-used term by the way.) or you accept that major characters can die.

Quote from: Omega;8847901: This is a slightly absurd assumption on both HP (and, again, Badman) If you have successfully gotten a gun in Batmans mouth then either A: Hes down to his last HP. or B: hes about to take it from you, before you can pull the trigger, and then beat all YOUR HP out of you. or C: its an insta-kill no matter what your HP at that point. or D: You never even got that far and are actually lying unconcious on the floor.

Hmmm... How absurd is it? From a comic book perspective it is something that happened in continuity (as opposed to an Elseworlds type thing) in an issue of Hitman written by Garth Ennis, and none of your proposed alternatives held true, so there's that.

From a game perspective, suppose you're a GM and let's say I sneak up on a drunk Conan. Would you really not let me say, "I put my dagger to his neck" until I first beat him down to 1 or 2 hp? Would you let me instakill him if he resisted? Either way, you'd be operating on GM fiat as far as I can tell. GM fiat = narrative authority.

Quote2: Except that there is no plot immunity as has been pointed out before. You seem to obsess a little with this. Once again. Batman survives most of his battles because of his intense training, skill, and suit. As well as usually being up against un-trained mooks with guns who are often terrified of this guy. Further throwing off aim at a usually very mobile target.

I love when people tell me I'm obsessing over something. We are having a discussion. Discussing a particular topic does not equal obsession with that topic. I'm not wandering the streets screaming about plot immunity in the face of random strangers.

Anyway, a couple points. First, if you believe all of those reasons you gave are why Batman doesn't get killed by random thugs with guns? That means the writers are doing good work. The more pertinent question relating to using simulation rules to reproduce genre fiction is, can you think of a ruleset where the way Batman takes out thugs without getting shot is reliably reproducible? One without meta currency?

QuoteOnce again lets point out that you are using as an example of someone being shot. One of the most highly trained non-metas in DC. And even he has been taken out and retired for a time. And again point out that other characters, long runners, have died and stayed dead (so far), or at least been gone a year or two and presumed dead.

What you are missing here is that these things are authorial decisions. I am not saying, "An author cannot decide to kill a character". Far from it. What I am saying is that you cannot expect a simulationist ruleset to follow genre expectations. But yet people often do expect this.

Frank Miller may be able to write a totally badass and plausible scene in which Batman takes out a dozen gunmen. Then you try it under rules of simulation and find that Batman dies half the time you try and play it out. You are speaking as though you could somehow guarantee a sim process will output the same results as genre convention and authorial intent give you. You can't.

QuoteInstead lets look at something like DCs Bloodlines heroes. Out of 20 or more new heroes, less than five have survived intact. And of those slain have not been seen again. Some "plot immunity".

Surely you aren't suggesting that I think all characters have the same degree of plot immunity.

QuoteComic books are essentially novels and so tend to be impossible to reconcile with standard RPG tenants like impending death at every step without having to bend the rules heavily to fit some perceived notion of "plot immunity" (I really despise that stupid over-used term by the way.) or you accept that major characters can die.

You know this is exactly what I am saying, right? That you can't emulate genre via simulation?

I think that a lot of the people arguing with me in this thread are just doing so out of pure reflex or something. What else am I to think when you sum up your argument  by paraphrasing what I have been saying for the past few posts?

EDIT: Let me note here. Replicating genre convention is by no means the topic of this thread. It is not what I am looking to accomplish at all. This is just a tangennt. So there's no need to tell me how shitty an idea it is or whatever.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884796"I put my dagger to his neck" until I first beat him down to 1 or 2 hp? Would you let me instakill him if he resisted? Either way, you'd be operating on GM fiat as far as I can tell. GM fiat = narrative authority.

How is that GM fiat? Game mechanics are provided for those times when an outcome is uncertain. Furthermore, there are numerous explicit instances in AD&D rules where hit points are irrelevant. Save-or-die poisons. The assassination table. Or perhaps more common, slitting an enemies throat in their sleep. The latter seems far more similar to a gun in batman's mouth than does referencing the rules for standard combat. What rule are you referencing that says to handle a gun in the mouth according to the rules of a chaotic melee?

As far as i can see there's almost zero practical application coming from this thread. It's all navel-gazing theorywank.

We've got a sub-forum for that. Moved.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884796Hmmm... How absurd is it? From a comic book perspective it is something that happened in continuity (as opposed to an Elseworlds type thing) in an issue of Hitman written by Garth Ennis, and none of your proposed alternatives held true, so there's that.
.

Well there's a problem with genre emulation right there. You have be very clear what genre you're emulating. "Superhero Comic books" is incredibly broad and a game meant to emulate Justice League Europe is going to play different than one meant to emulate The Authority.

And, frankly, given Garth Ennis' rep for aggressive deconstruction (AKA: Shitting on) most of what would be considered "typical" elements of the superhero comic and making his contempt for them quite clear in his work (see The Pro) I'd be hesitant to cite anything by him as an example of what could, would or should happen in a game meant to emulate conventional comic genres.

Quote from: One Horse Town;884811As far as i can see there's almost zero practical application coming from this thread. It's all navel-gazing theorywank.

We've got a sub-forum for that.

I thought that was Pundit's Forum.

Looks at top of forum...

Quote from: Forum DescriptionDesign, Development, and Gameplay - For discussion of game logs, as well as the design and development of new games, mechanics, and settings. This forum is for practical design and actual play, not for theory.

Shouldn't this forum be the last place you put this thread?

You put this thread in the forum for a reason specifically the opposite of what the clear definition of the forum is...oh, I see what you did there.

Quote from: Lunamancer;884805How is that GM fiat? Game mechanics are provided for those times when an outcome is uncertain. Furthermore, there are numerous explicit instances in AD&D rules where hit points are irrelevant. Save-or-die poisons. The assassination table. Or perhaps more common, slitting an enemies throat in their sleep. The latter seems far more similar to a gun in batman's mouth than does referencing the rules for standard combat. What rule are you referencing that says to handle a gun in the mouth according to the rules of a chaotic melee?

All those rules are apllicable if you decide they are as the GM. That's what GM fiat means.

But I'm dropping the genre emulation issue. It's tangential and unlikely to go anywhere.

I do think there has been a lot of practically useful discussion in this thread, and certainly that was the intent. But if the admins feel otherwise so be it.

Anyway I'd certainly prefer getting back to practical apllications regardless.

Quote from: Omega;884459TSR'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.

It's not only in Marvel that characters seen to die come back; that's common enough in superheroic soap opera that one should never count on a major figure being permanently off the scene. "The death of Superman?" Give me a break! Former Green Lantern Hal Foster, even while in a certain technical sense no longer among the living, became the new Spectre.

Some basic facts of RPG life:

1) The first part of defining a game is establishing an objective. In dramatic  terms as well, obstacles to attaining an objective provide dramatic conflict.

2) Even if you're very very good at improvising (which not everyone is), odds are you'll do better as a GM when you can use prepared material.

3) As GM, you are effectively God as far as the campaign goes. You bear ultimate responsibility, regardless of what may be nominally rules. The real final answer to any question of why, in the domain beyond the players' control,  this happened instead of that, is because you chose to make it so. This -- along with your being immediately at hand, as the designer of some more cut and dried kind of game typically is not -- is why players so easily slip into taking as personal affronts things they don't like.

Now, sometimes the GM has one idea of the objective and the players have another. A lot of published scenarios have advised GMs to force players' hands by making straying from the expected path hard in ways that might seem outrageously arbitrary, not reasonable in-world consequences of the choice. Even when the consequences are reasonable, players may still feel "railroaded" into playing a different game than the one they want to play.

What's much preferable is for the players to be on the same page from the start as to what the game's objective is. Regarding it simply as a game, an obvious solution is to explain it as GM to players. However, this "meta-game" approach detracts from some people's enjoyment of the role-playing aspect, which demands that choices be arrived at from the characters' perspective.

Once one gets to know players and their characters, it is in my experience pretty easy to tailor scenarios so that appropriate motives follow naturally rather than needing to be forced. This is not perfectly reliable, but it works often enough to keep the need for improvisation manageable.

When things are at an early stage, however, it is a big help to have clear default objectives. That's part of the brilliance of D&D and its ilk, providing the dungeon expedition (or some other stereotyped activity in other games) as a default premise. It gives something for the game to be about even without any further particulars.

 It's a given in D&D, T&T, etc., that every player-character should be interested in braving the perils of the underworld in quest of treasure, experience and renown. A game of Star Trek or Call of Cthulhu has its own built-in assumptions. These help to define the game just as do the victory conditions in a board game such as Monopoly or Risk or Settlers of Catan. We can expand beyond that, but it remains a convenient, well understood basis on which to fall back.

Putting in more effort to define characters before putting them into play can pay dividends, but many people prefer to develop characters incrementally. In the latter case, it is important to provide situations that help define the characters' personalities. The GM may also introduce elements of background biography through scenarios, though some dialog with players is well advised to reach understanding as to how much of that a given player appreciates (and what "world building" on the player's part does not step on the GM's toes).

If the players find it acceptable, you can get things off to a good start by defining certain key roles in the design of the first scenario and then assigning those to appropriate PCs. For instance, if I'm running the Keep on the Borderlands and Caves of Chaos, each PC might have some relationship with one or another NPC in that milieu, a personal reason for coming to the Keep. Each of those (which might be selected from a longer list) will tie in with planned events or aspects of the situation.

This may be especially valuable for convention games, in which there's only so much time to get the action going.

A variation that requires significantly more work is to present a "pre-game" in which each PC is put into a character-defining situation. The player's choices then make a difference in how that aspect of background ties in with the scenario.

This works best when one has opportunity for one-on-one sessions prior to getting the players together for group play. Besides not leaving the rest neglected meanwhile, it puts in each player's mind ahead of time thoughts of the objective(s) to be pursued in the upcoming game. One may provide a dossier of information (perhaps mixed with appropriate misinformation) to inspire further preparation of the PC's perspective.

I've learned that I definitely fall further on the "narrative/storygamer/whatever" side of the spectrum than the board norms, if that counts as practical.

Quote from: Phillip;884872It's not only in Marvel that characters seen to die come back; that's common enough in superheroic soap opera that one should never count on a major figure being permanently off the scene. "The death of Superman?" Give me a break! Former Green Lantern Hal Foster, even while in a certain technical sense no longer among the living, became the new Spectre.

Part of that is the utterly cyclic and often opposed nature of comic writers. This I learned well from working with several and its only gotten worse over time.

Writer A kills off popular character to make room for new coke version. Some times it works. Some times it falls flat. If it takes off then it becomes the new norm.

Writer B comes along who was a fan of the killed off character and now HE is in charge and can "fix" that problem. Sometimes heavy handedly.

Writer C comes along who is a fan of... and you get the idea.

Or occasionally you get some royal fuckup and someone finally has the clout to fix it. Feuds amongst writers and editors are many.

I can tell you with 100% clairvoyance that if someone has not allready, then sooner or later someone will bring back the original Question or the total screwup of the recent so called Secret Wars for example.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884291Even if the PCs have a 95% chance of winning any given battle, my math says you can still expect a loss within about 20 battles or so. So I never really understood how a lot of games made it past 20 or 30 battles without resulting in a TPK and having to start over.

If the only outcomes allowed are victory or death it is indeed surprising if any sort of fair fight doesn't eventually end in dead PCs.
However, a 95% chance to win does not mean there is a 5% chance of death, much less a 5% chance of a TPK.

The party of PCs may not win but they still may not all die. Other possibilities include.

• Fighting to a draw instead of a victory.
• Negotiating a truce to end the fight.
• Running away.
• Surrendering. (Cultures that expect and use ransom can make this a frequent, reasonably safe and certain, and non-fatal outcome.)
• Falling unconscious or incapacitated instead of being killed.
• And of course there may be a mixture of several of the above outcomes for various PCs in the party.

Quote from: AsenRG;884401What difference do you see between "skipping" and "compressing"? Of course everything would happen, but not playing out the time of a four-month trip is generally considered standard practice. The oxen pulling the cars would still shit on the road, but I don't think we need to mention that:).
Or do you mean something else?

I'm still unclear as to the difference.

 

Quote from: Manzanaro;884476Coming 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...
...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.

This seems like the difference between being content with the simulation and the level of suspense the players have gotten from the events and with wanting to do something more to try to enhance the suspense of the players.

QuoteIncorporation 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.

This underlined bit sounds like you, the GM, created this scene and inserted it, not as an outcome of a simulation, but as a conscious and intentional attempt to enhance future suspense by first creating a false sense of normalcy or security. Is that correct?

You seem to call this skipping (or compressing, I'm still not sure what you think the difference is between the two). But to me this is inserting a scene (or situation to use a term with less literary and film baggage) and has nothing to do with skipping or compressing anything.

QuoteAnd 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.

And this is either another inserted situation or just the next thing that happened as the simulation played itself out.

QuoteBreakdown: And people were on the edges of their seats.

This seems like the effect you were trying to create by inserting scenes chosen for dramatic affect rather than based on the simulation or on player choice of PC actions. Is that correct?

Quote from: nDervish;884568[code]
August 3 - Sunday
    - New Varn bandits active at 1513 Valley of Fiendish Statues; recon marginal

This looks like some of the event timelines that I use for Runequest and for Honor+Intrigue. I often include the weather for that day as well.

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.[/quote]I agree. I wouldn't call this foreshadowing either. It sounds like the natural and expected output from a world in motion.

 

Quote from: Nexus;884629

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.

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

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

Used sparingly and judiciously I also found it worked well in WEG Star Wars.

Quote from: Manzanaro;884796From a game perspective, suppose you're a GM and let's say I sneak up on a drunk Conan.

Even impaired by drink the keen senses of Conan the Cimmerian will most likely detect the heavy tread of a civilized man like you. Or at least that's what REH might have written. Or to put it in simulation terms, did your character's sneak succeed in an opposed roll against Conan's amazingly high awareness (albeit somewhat penalized for being drunk)?

Quote from: Bren;885118If the only outcomes allowed are victory or death it is indeed surprising if any sort of fair fight doesn't eventually end in dead PCs.
However, a 95% chance to win does not mean there is a 5% chance of death, much less a 5% chance of a TPK.

The party of PCs may not win but they still may not all die. Other possibilities include.

• Fighting to a draw instead of a victory.
• Negotiating a truce to end the fight.
• Running away.
• Surrendering. (Cultures that expect and use ransom can make this a frequent, reasonably safe and certain, and non-fatal outcome.)
• Falling unconscious or incapacitated instead of being killed.
• And of course there may be a mixture of several of the above outcomes for various PCs in the party.

Sounds good, though often some or all of these things are not actually possible in play. Not least because players tend to not like surrendering or running away in my experience (and what I have heard from many others).

QuoteThis seems like the difference between being content with the simulation and the level of suspense the players have gotten from the events and with wanting to do something more to try to enhance the suspense of the players.

Yes, this is one of the things I mean when I talk about employing narrative techniques.

QuoteThis underlined bit sounds like you, the GM, created this scene and inserted it, not as an outcome of a simulation, but as a conscious and intentional attempt to enhance future suspense by first creating a false sense of normalcy or security. Is that correct?

It wasn't some artificial thing that I inserted. The PC was a schoolkid with a family. I chose to focus on events that might not normally be played out in the context of an RPG. But yes, as I stated in the post you are quoting from, that was indeed among my goals.

QuoteYou seem to call this skipping (or compressing, I'm still not sure what you think the difference is between the two). But to me this is inserting a scene (or situation to use a term with less literary and film baggage) and has nothing to do with skipping or compressing anything.

The difference between skipping and compressing is a literal one. Think of a simulation running on a computer. If I want to skip three days ahead in the sim, all I can do is fast forward the sim and every element of the simulation will be advanced under the rules just as if I had played in normal speed; the events still actually take place (virtually) just at high speed. Under rules of narrative I can just say "Three days later" and just make assumptions about what happened in the intervening time: authorial assumptions, unless I actually tell my players "Hold on while I play out a bunch of stuff behind the scenes that occurs over that 3 day period".

QuoteAnd this is either another inserted situation or just the next thing that happened as the simulation played itself out.

It was results of a simulation presented by narrative means, just like many many events that take place in an RPG.

QuoteThis seems like the effect you were trying to create by inserting scenes chosen for dramatic affect rather than based on the simulation or on player choice of PC actions. Is that correct?

It was no more an insertion than any other narrative time skip. I simply chose to focus on events before shit hit the fan rather than leaping right into the thick of it. The events themselves were still based on both principles of simulation and player actions. If the player had stated that they spent the whole day staring out the window it would have changed how things played out.

QuoteWhile 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.

However you think of it, it can still be effective as a form of foreshadowing. My other example of the impending awakening of a powerful demon causing the PCs to have nightmares is probably a more classic example of foreshadowing.

QuoteEven impaired by drink the keen senses of Conan the Cimmerian will most likely detect the heavy tread of a civilized man like you. Or at least that's what REH might have written. Or to put it in simulation terms, did your character's sneak succeed in an opposed roll against Conan's amazingly high awareness (albeit somewhat penalized for being drunk)?

Yes, when I said "Let's say I sneak up on Conan," there was an implicit assumption that a) I was talking about my character and not myself as it would be hard for a real person to sneak up on a fictional character and b) that all required rolls had been made.

Now, there absolutely are GMs who would say "Nobody can sneak up on Conan the Barbarian!" and would either ignore the rolls or would override the results the simulation had returned based on their own narrative considerations. This, of course, would suck.