Quote from: Manzanaro;885158Yes, 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.

You really need to stop using whats just short of white room examples to back your point because each time you undermine your point brutally.

So you snuck up on Conan, Batman, Wyatt Erp, Hannibal, Brice Lee, King Tut, Godzilla and who knows what else. So? Big deal? What about? What is the point other than dick waving that you can white room a situation like that?

So you then killed the character. SO WHAT? They are dead. Gone. Not coming back. Congratulations. You are now in a "What IF?" scenario. A world without that character.

Quote from: Omega;885216You really need to stop using whats just short of white room examples to back your point because each time you undermine your point brutally.

So you snuck up on Conan, Batman, Wyatt Erp, Hannibal, Brice Lee, King Tut, Godzilla and who knows what else. So? Big deal? What about? What is the point other than dick waving that you can white room a situation like that?

So you then killed the character. SO WHAT? They are dead. Gone. Not coming back. Congratulations. You are now in a "What IF?" scenario. A world without that character.

I was responding to Bren. If you want context trace it back. If you don't, fuck off. Simple shit.

Quote from: Bren;885118This 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.

My actual notes include weather, too.    I just edited it out when posting, since it didn't feel relevant to my point and I wanted to keep the size of the excerpt down.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885158The 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".

I think the reason this has been unclear to me (and, I suspect, others) is that, when I ask myself "what's likely to have happened over the course of those three days?" and answer it based on a quick estimate of what's likely, based on the rules and what has already come before, I consider that to be a quick, crude, and approximate simulation - "if I had simulated it in full, what would have been the likely outcome?" - while you appear to be saying that you consider that to be an authorial decision.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885158The 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".

The way you describe computer simulation only describes some computer simulations. Another type is you look at all uncompleted tasks and when the next is to begin, and you skip forward to the next point in time when something ends or something begins. And this sort of simulation much more closely resembles how an RPG flows. This idea that skipping ahead is the stuff of narrative and not simulation is as much bullshit as your idea that when a GM chooses to follow the rules, he's engaged in fiat.

Quote from: Lunamancer;885244The way you describe computer simulation only describes some computer simulations. Another type is you look at all uncompleted tasks and when the next is to begin, and you skip forward to the next point in time when something ends or something begins. And this sort of simulation much more closely resembles how an RPG flows. This idea that skipping ahead is the stuff of narrative and not simulation is as much bullshit as your idea that when a GM chooses to follow the rules, he's engaged in fiat.

There are turn based simulations, sure. But skipping ahead 3 days is not turn based. If every single event in your game is a result of some procedure of simulation? Fine you're running a simulation. To the extent that you author events you aren't simulating them. The distinction I'm making really is that cut and dried.

Think of the wargames that were precursors to D&D. If a player said, "Let's skip ahead to halfway through the battle because that's where it gets fun," how would you go about it? Well, short of actually playing it out, you couldn't. Not without stepping out of the bounds of simulation anyway. Sure in an RPG there may be long sections that are purely turn based and tracked on the sim level throughout, like combat and sometimes exploration, but when I talk about things like time skips and scene framing, I am not talking about these things within that context.

But really unsure why I am bothering with this explanation (other than due to my general pleasant demeanor). You seem bound to misinterpret me regardless, as you show in your comment referring to my supposed "idea that when a GM chooses to follow the rules, he's engaged in fiat". I am sure you know that I said no such thing. We were talking about surprise attacks in D&D and you started speculating about assasination tables and saves vs death. I said choosing to use those things in the case of a mere surprise attack would be pure GM fiat. If you can show me I am wrong and that you would in fact be "following the rules" please do. Otherwise I consider this another pointless attack and am dismissing it as such.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;884424Why can't they be killed by a random mook? I get that it often isn't done.

My statement read:

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 (whether they fail or succeed). Their stories would still need closure.

It's about properly closing the protagonist's story arc. If you kill the protagonist without doing that, most people would feel like the story they were watching didn't go anywhere.

QuoteI 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).

It doesn't have to be that, but that would most likely suck donkey balls.

[quote In Game of Thrones people die all the time, and it still works. [/quote] From what I've seen commented here, the expectations were set differently for this.

QuoteIn 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.

Nothing that an agreed upon house rule couldn't fix. Some of the newer games do not allow protagonists to die until their story goal is achieved.

QuoteMy 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).

Right, but we are talking about generating a better story, not about emulating history.

QuoteIt isn't how they die that makes it meaningless, it is how the party reacts.

The fact that a protagonist dies without achieving some sort of closure makes his death meaningless to many to the point where you would rightly question whether this was a protagonist to begin with.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885224I was responding to Bren. If you want context trace it back. If you don't, fuck off. Simple shit.

Yeah that rather continues to prove my point doesnt it? Try again please.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885158Sounds 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).

They are all actually possible in play.

Both fiction and reality are chock full of people doing things other than always fighting to victory or death. If your players refuse to ever do any of those things and instead insist on fighting to the death, that's a significant player problem that needs to be addressed on that level. It's nothing that a rule system or a GM technique is going to fix.

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

This would have been helpful to have seen earlier as it clearly illustrates what you want that is different from a world simulation.

QuoteIt 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.

It's artificial in that you apparently don't play through normal activities like meals, chores, and parental interactions and only did so here to create a contrast to something you planned to have occur later on. That it is artificial isn't bad, but it also isn't a simple world in motion focused on what the players find interesting.

QuoteThe 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".

Any computer simulation will skip lots of things that the designer didn't choose to simulate – because they were too difficult to simulate, because they were beyond the scope of the simulation, or because they were of too little significance to include.

Also, you are not in fact running on a computer. The GM in a table top RPG can't roll the dice faster to compress time, so compressing time literally cannot occur. But compressing time in the sense of not describing, rolling for, or recording every niggling detail can occur. We still assume that the characters walk, talk, eat, sleep, defecate, and breathe over the next three days as they travel towards Rivendell even if we don't describe those activities. Every group plays out only the parts of the characters' lives where something has the potential of being interesting. For one group, what they have for dinner or how well it is prepared will be of interest, while for another group such things are deemed uninteresting and are just assumed to occur without dedicating time to play.

Quote from: nDervish;885225I think the reason this has been unclear to me (and, I suspect, others) is that, when I ask myself "what's likely to have happened over the course of those three days?" and answer it based on a quick estimate of what's likely, based on the rules and what has already come before, I consider that to be a quick, crude, and approximate simulation - "if I had simulated it in full, what would have been the likely outcome?" - while you appear to be saying that you consider that to be an authorial decision.

Exactly. Skipping and compressing seem like the same thing to me.

Manzanaro, do you have an example of compressing time in a table top RPG that is different from skipping certain activities?

Quote from: Manzanaro;885158It was results of a simulation presented by narrative means, just like many many events that take place in an RPG.

QuoteIt 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 GM can leave the choice of what is interesting up to the players or the GM can, as you have in your example, decide for various reasons to select certain situations for play. I see the former as the GM presenting the world in motion while the latter, depending on how heavy handed the GM is in selecting situations, may tend more towards some sort of genre emulation.

QuoteHowever 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.

I really don't want to get into a semantic discussion of foreshadowing. Suffice it to say, I think rumors that should reasonable occur are not foreshadowing since they should be there whether or not the GM has any desire to foreshadow events. Vague, prophetic dreams and visions, on the other hand, are much more likely to be a narrative technique employed intentionally by the GM for a particular effect. (Though in some settings the PCs may actually have in-world abilities to have prophetic visions or dreams which makes the usage even of visions and dreams a bit unclear.)

QuoteYes, 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.

When a player says, "I sneak up on Conan" I never assume the required rolls have already been made. Among other reasons, because the player doesn't know how aware Conan is and therefore cannot determine whether their roll was successful nor whether Conan's roll was unsuccessful. I included the bit about "a civilized man like you" because Howard frequently contrasted the lack of awareness of the decadent civilized man with the savage awareness of Conan who was untainted by civilized living. It's mostly horseshit, but it's the author's horseshit and you can't ignore it if you are representing Conan.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885254Think of the wargames that were precursors to D&D. If a player said, "Let's skip ahead to halfway through the battle because that's where it gets fun," how would you go about it?

Typically, in a wargame you are simulating an actual battle so you would just put down the forces in the locations that they occupied at the halfway point of the Battle of Gettysburg and go from there.

If it was a fictional battle, you would use some method of simplifying the simulation to figure out what happened up to that point.

But if it is a fictional battle, the player would not know ahead of time when the battle "gets fun". Your example presumes the outcome of the battle at the halfway point and beyond is already known so that the player knows that's when the battle "gets fun", in which case you just set up the forces at that point just like Day 2 or Day 3 at Gettysburg.

Now maybe "gets fun" means let's skip ahead to the part of the battle where the PCs become involved. In that case, you would use some method of simplifying the simulation to figure out what happened up to that point.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885254There are turn based simulations, sure. But skipping ahead 3 days is not turn based.

I never claimed it was turn-based.

QuoteIf every single event in your game is a result of some procedure of simulation? Fine you're running a simulation. To the extent that you author events you aren't simulating them. The distinction I'm making really is that cut and dried.

As it pertains to the sort of simulation I described, everything was the result of a specific procedure.

In a broader sense, however? I cast detect false dichotomy. The phrase "every single event ... a result of some procedure" as necessary for a simulation is potentially suspect. It could be construed to include in-game decisions. For instance, the opening move in chess, as any move, proceeds according to the rules of the game. However, which opening move the player chooses is entirely that player's prerogative. Does that make a chess player an author? I don't think so.

But in an RPG, part of a GM's role is to make decisions for all the NPCs. If the GM chooses to farm those choices out to a quick and dirty rule or a dice roll, that's his perogative, just as a PC can farm out the decision to take the left corridor or the right to a coin toss. Thus I can follow the sort of simulation *I* outlined, simplifying it basing skipping forward 100% on the players' actions, and it meets the bare minimum requirements for being a legitimate simulation.

QuoteThink of the wargames that were precursors to D&D. If a player said, "Let's skip ahead to halfway through the battle because that's where it gets fun," how would you go about it?

I'm not. This doesn't match the specs of the simulation I outlined at all.

QuoteYou seem bound to misinterpret me regardless,

That's comical since you clearly have a severe reading impairment.

Quoteas you show in your comment referring to my supposed "idea that when a GM chooses to follow the rules, he's engaged in fiat". I am sure you know that I said no such thing.

Ah, but you did.

QuoteWe were talking about surprise attacks in D&D

No. We were talking about batman with a gun in his mouth. You thought you found a great flaw in the hit point system. Someone else pointed out your error--that if you're actually using the hit point system, you don't get to just jam the gun in batman's mouth to begin with. Surprise is one condition in which you might make that happen to bring about your hypothetical. But it's not the only way. And it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Quoteand you started speculating about assasination tables and saves vs death.

I did not speculate about anything. I pointed to those things as clear and present examples that just because a game has ablative hit points does not mean depleting those hit points are the ONLY way to kill a character. Your batman with a gun in the mouth example demonstrates that you clearly didn't understand that. I cited specific examples of why you're wrong.

QuoteI said choosing to use those things in the case of a mere surprise attack would be pure GM fiat.

I never said anything about using those rules in the case of a surprise attack.

QuoteIf you can show me I am wrong and that you would in fact be "following the rules" please do. Otherwise I consider this another pointless attack and am dismissing it as such.

I already showed that in the post you cite. For an exact citation, turn to page 75 in the 1st Ed DMG, the heading titled "Assassins' Table for Assassinations" has an asterisk next to it. Below the table, it explains that this table is also used for resolving attacks on helpless opponents by any character class. The percentage chance shown on the table is for instant death. Regardless of whether this check is successful or not, weapon damage always occurs.

Yes, batman with a gun to his head (or in his mouth) can die from a single head shot if we're playing AD&D 1st Ed, even if he has 80 hit points. And no, this is not a matter of GM fiat.

Jesus Christ. I responded and then lost the post. Okay, this is my last response to semanticly pedantic posts. And even it is going to be trimmed from what I had written.

Bren, I have asked before as to your reasons for engaging me on this topic. I get the feeling that you are the kind of guy who sees discussions as games to be won rather than as a means of achieving understanding. That makes discussions with you feel extremely tedious and unrewarding

Quote from: Bren;885329They are all actually possible in play.

Except in cases where they are NOT possible, and thus my wording. You can't profitably surrender to many sorts of foes. You can't move faster than some foes. Etc.

QuoteBoth fiction and reality are chock full of people doing things other than always fighting to victory or death. If your players refuse to ever do any of those things and instead insist on fighting to the death, that's a significant player problem that needs to be addressed on that level. It's nothing that a rule system or a GM technique is going to fix.

If only my players were like everyone else's, running from battles and surrendering constantly.

QuoteIt's artificial in that you apparently don't play through normal activities like meals, chores, and parental interactions and only did so here to create a contrast to something you planned to have occur later on. That it is artificial isn't bad, but it also isn't a simple world in motion focused on what the players find interesting.

I only play through things that I expect to be interesting. What does this have to do with 'artifiiciality'? I skip the boring stuff, on the basis that it is boring and will create a boring narrative. You don't skip anything? Or if you do, on what basis? If you can answer this question to yourself, you will understand me much better.

QuoteAny computer simulation will skip lots of things that the designer didn't choose to simulate – because they were too difficult to simulate, because they were beyond the scope of the simulation, or because they were of too little significance to include.

"Skipping" and "not including" are not the same thing. It would be pretty damn hard to skip a chapter in a book that was not actually included in the book.

QuoteAlso, you are not in fact running on a computer. The GM in a table top RPG can't roll the dice faster to compress time, so compressing time literally cannot occur. But compressing time in the sense of not describing, rolling for, or recording every niggling detail can occur. We still assume that the characters walk, talk, eat, sleep, defecate, and breathe over the next three days as they travel towards Rivendell even if we don't describe those activities. Every group plays out only the parts of the characters' lives where something has the potential of being interesting. For one group, what they have for dinner or how well it is prepared will be of interest, while for another group such things are deemed uninteresting and are just assumed to occur without dedicating time to play.

Exactly. Skipping and compressing seem like the same thing to me.

Brilliant rhetoric. You say that a GM can not compress time (which I agree with), than you say that he can compress time by actually skipping time and calling it compression. Than you summarize by concluding that they are the same thing!

QuoteManzanaro, do you have an example of compressing time in a table top RPG that is different from skipping certain activities?

Rolling the dice faster like you said. Otherwise skipping over events is an authorial choice.

QuoteThe GM can leave the choice of what is interesting up to the players or the GM can, as you have in your example, decide for various reasons to select certain situations for play. I see the former as the GM presenting the world in motion while the latter, depending on how heavy handed the GM is in selecting situations, may tend more towards some sort of genre emulation.

So your games are entirely dictated by what the players find interesting? Before you roll for wandering monsters you do an interest check? I can not imagine a more narratively guided game than that!

Let's get back on topic as the semantic digressions are boring as fuck.

People have talked about generating an engaging narrative via the means of giving the PCs engaging characters to interact with.

So what are some trick/techniques that people use to create engaging NPCs? The GM is responsible for a whole lot of characters. How do you make them stand out as interesting individuals? What about if the PCs start interacting with a bit character who had been previously undefined? Do you just wing it? How do you choose what character traits to give such an NPC on the fly so as to make them interesting?

Quote from: Manzanaro;885353Except in cases where they are NOT possible, and thus my wording. You can't profitably surrender to many sorts of foes. You can't move faster than some foes. Etc.

If only my players were like everyone else's, running from battles and surrendering constantly.

I listed a series of perfectly reasonable alternatives to fighting to the death. You then claimed none were possible. A situation where the PCs have no option other than victory or death should be rare, because there is nearly always something else they can do besides stand there and fight to the death. For example in the case where their opponent is faster they may be able to create a distraction (e.g. food, money, exploding oil barrels, shooting out the lights, dropping caltrops, injuring bystanders, or slower moving PCs or party members), the party could split up so someone may escape, they could hide, they could retreat to a place of relative tactical advantage (a doorway, stair, or some type of cover for instance), or they could employee several different tactics. I originally listed half a dozen possibilities as thought starters. If it's your players who refuse to accept any alternative other than victory or death that's on them. If you the GM refuses to consider options other than victory or death that's on you. We cannot fix stubborn or stupid GMs or players.

If your group frequently encounter situations where the players feel they have no choice other than to fight to the death, then the fault is with the group. A good non-narrative technique for fixing that is for both the players and the GM to think openly about possible solutions instead of getting stuck in the rut of yet another fight to the death.

QuoteI only play through things that I expect to be interesting. What does this have to do with 'artifiiciality'?

That you are artificially choosing to ignore a simulation based on some other considerations that are outside of or artificial to the simulation. I thought this would be self-evident. I don't know why you are hung up on the term artificial. Narrative considerations are artificial. Narrative considerations are a human construct imposed on events. Narrative considerations are not part of how the real world works or is simulated. All I meant by "artiticial" was you were intentionally selecting something for reasons other than following events in a simulation. It sounds like you do that a lot. Certainly much more often than do some of us. That's not intended as a criticism, just a recognition that you have a different play style. Because you clearly do.

Quote"Skipping" and "not including" are not the same thing. It would be pretty damn hard to skip a chapter in a book that was not actually included in the book.

We aren't talking about books. We are talking about RPGs. If you have an example of compressing time in an RPG that isn't skipping, provide it. If you don't just say, "Golly, I guess I said there were two choices: compressing and skipping but one of them (compressing) isn't a real choice GM's can actually implement", then ask about what people skip and why they skip it.

QuoteBrilliant rhetoric. You say that a GM can not compress time (which I agree with)...

You say you are annoyed at what you call pedantry, but you continually introduce odd tangents that seem unrelated to any point you are interested in. Then you get upset when questioned about your tangent. We could have all skipped this tangent if you had not introduced it in the first place or when asked about how the two were different you had responded "Golly, I guess I said there were two choices, but one of them (compressing) isn't a real choice." Then asked about what people skip and why they skip it.

QuoteSo your games are entirely dictated by what the players find interesting?

What I meant was that rather than me as the GM imposing my notion of what is interesting, I ask the players what they are interested in. I might say, "So is there something your characters want to do or is it OK if I advance the clock?" If it is OK with them to advance the clock then I advance to the next point where the players want their PCs to do something or to the next point where something else going on in the world comes to the attention of the PCs.

For example, currently the PCs plan to attend and sabotage the Prince de Condé's May Day party. So we might advance the clock to the first event related to the party which in this case is the welcome feast for the King and Queen that occurs the night of April 30 at the Chateau Chantilly.

Or the players might say, "No wait, we want to intercept the shipment of oysters for the feast and remove all the ice." In that case we would move the clock forward to the point where they try to intercept the shipment.

Either of those points might be a point that the players would choose. But it is possible that the world in motion might have a point prior to that. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that some of the PCs have annoyed the Spanish Ambassador and his master assassin by thwarting various Spanish plans, killing Spanish nobles, and finding evidence against Spanish sympathizers and spies. If that were the case (and it is) it is possible that there is a group of masked assassins that will interrupt the routine activities of some PC before the welcome feast or the oyster shipment. So the clock would advance to that point. I'd be surprised if "Assassins Attack!" wasn't interesting to the players, but even if it wasn't, if that's what the world is doing, that's what the players get. (In case it isn't obvious, one reason they would get "Assassins Attack!" is because the PCs have taken few if any precautions to avoid assassins.

None of those choices are, per se, narrative decisions on my part as the GM. They are choices based on what the PCs try to do and what is happening in the world. The Spanish Ambassador didn't send assassins because I the GM thought that would be dramatic or narratively interesting. He decided that based on his personality, his ongoing plots and plans, the resources he has available in Paris, PC actions that have annoyed him and interfered with his plans, my ideas of the possible (i.e. "Hey I wonder if the Ambassador is annoyed enough at Guy or Gaston to have them assassinated?" and "I wonder if the master assassin known as The Left Hand of God is annoyed at being thwarted once again by Guy and will try to eliminate him?", and some random rolling on the GM Emulator.

The game is about what the PCs do and what the world around them does. That tends to be dictated by what someone at the table finds interesting for their PC to attempt and the reasonable results of that attempt along with the reasonable actions of the other people and things in the setting as those people and things go about attempting to accomplish their goals. (I'd call those people and things "actors" as in a person or thing that acts, but then someone would think I meant actors in a show or film and start drawing erroneous conclusions based on the equivocation in meaning.)

Quote from: Manzanaro;885354Let's get back on topic as the semantic digressions are boring as fuck.

So maybe stop creating these semantic digressions?

Quote from: Bren;885490I listed a series of perfectly reasonable alternatives to fighting to the death. You then claimed none were possible. A situation where the PCs have no option other than victory or death should be rare, because there is nearly always something else they can do besides stand there and fight to the death. For example in the case where their opponent is faster they may be able to create a distraction (e.g. food, money, exploding oil barrels, shooting out the lights, dropping caltrops, injuring bystanders, or slower moving PCs or party members), the party could split up so someone may escape, they could hide, they could retreat to a place of relative tactical advantage (a doorway, stair, or some type of cover for instance), or they could employee several different tactics. I originally listed half a dozen possibilities as thought starters. If it's your players who refuse to accept any alternative other than victory or death that's on them. If you the GM refuses to consider options other than victory or death that's on you. We cannot fix stubborn or stupid GMs or players.

Actually what I said was "often some or all of these things are not actually possible in play." Do you see how this is different than, "Claiming none were possible?" You attributing things to me that I have not said is a pretty cheap way to score points.

Anyway, as far as many of your proposed solutions go, many of them seem to come down to GM fiat. e.g. the players propose a plan that is not explicitly covered by the rules, the GM decides whether it works. I wonder how often the GMs considerations are based upon a painstakingly accurate simulation of the proposed action, as opposed to being based on whether the GM wants to let the PCs die and end the campaign?

QuoteIf your group frequently encounter situations where the players feel they have no choice other than to fight to the death, then the fault is with the group. A good non-narrative technique for fixing that is for both the players and the GM to think openly about possible solutions instead of getting stuck in the rut of yet another fight to the death.

Stupid ass group. It's always their fault! It could never be the fault of a random encounter system generating a legitimately lethal situation or anything like that.

QuoteThat you are artificially choosing to ignore a simulation based on some other considerations that are outside of or artificial to the simulation. I thought this would be self-evident. I don't know why you are hung up on the term artificial. Narrative considerations are artificial. Narrative considerations are a human construct imposed on events. Narrative considerations are not part of how the real world works or is simulated. All I meant by "artiticial" was you were intentionally selecting something for reasons other than following events in a simulation. It sounds like you do that a lot. Certainly much more often than do some of us. That's not intended as a criticism, just a recognition that you have a different play style. Because you clearly do.

I didn't ignore shit. If the party is traveling to the dungeon, and I decide to do a scene where they cross a bridge over a canyon first, that doesn't mean I ignored the dungeon. In this particular case, I decided that an NPC would attack the home of the PC who he had seen spying on him. As a GM you find this to be unnatural? Or is the 'artificial' part that I started following events for that PC well before the actual attack occurred? Do you feel that rules of simulation somehow dictate that my only valid choice was to skip straight to the attack itself??

As far as me obsessing on the term "artificial"? Heh. It's your term Bren, not mine. And yeah, narrative is artificial while simulations grow on trees, right?

QuoteWe aren't talking about books. We are talking about RPGs. If you have an example of compressing time in an RPG that isn't skipping, provide it. If you don't just say, "Golly, I guess I said there were two choices: compressing and skipping but one of them (compressing) isn't a real choice GM's can actually implement", then ask about what people skip and why they skip it.

Again, this is based purely on a misreading on your part. I said there were two choices? For who? WTF?? Book=pure narrative and if a book advances in time than the intermediate points get skipped, and any reference to intervening events will be authorially manufactured. GMs can employ this technique. In simulation you can't skip time and still meaningfully call it a simulation. You can compress time but the entire simulated environment will advance completely under the terms of simulation. The only equivalent a GM has to this is rolling the dice faster, as you and I have both agreed.

EDIT: This relates to the entire premise of this thread. A good book makes you feel like it is governed by rules of simulation. When a protagonist wins a fight we are supposed to find the narrated fight to give the same results as a simulation of the fight would give. In an RPG we really can have many things governed by rules of simulation. But not everything. Any RPG is going to have elements that are authored rather than being the results of a process of simulation, and even the way we relate the results of the simulation can benefit from good narrative techniques, as opposed to say, "I hit for 4." "He misses." "I hit for 9."

QuoteWhat I meant was that rather than me as the GM imposing my notion of what is interesting, I ask the players what they are interested in. I might say, "So is there something your characters want to do or is it OK if I advance the clock?" If it is OK with them to advance the clock then I advance to the next point where the players want their PCs to do something or to the next point where something else going on in the world comes to the attention of the PCs.

Oh, so you do the same thing that I do and have precisely mentioned at various points in this thread? Cool.

QuoteEither of those points might be a point that the players would choose. But it is possible that the world in motion might have a point prior to that. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that some of the PCs have annoyed the Spanish Ambassador and his master assassin by thwarting various Spanish plans, killing Spanish nobles, and finding evidence against Spanish sympathizers and spies. If that were the case (and it is) it is possible that there is a group of masked assassins that will interrupt the routine activities of some PC before the welcome feast or the oyster shipment. So the clock would advance to that point. I'd be surprised if "Assassins Attack!" wasn't interesting to the players, but even if it wasn't, if that's what the world is doing, that's what the players get. (In case it isn't obvious, one reason they would get "Assassins Attack!" is because the PCs have taken few if any precautions to avoid assassins.

This almost completely mirrors my own example which you call out as being so different than your own style. I guess your point of difference is simply that you would choose to play things out from the actual moment that the assassins attacked? Jumping in to see what the PCs were doing prior to the attack is what you find objectionable?

Why don't you just Roleplay it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;885506Why don't you just Roleplay it?

What do you mean?