Quote from: Lunamancer;886157Actually, an assassin attacking with surprise can opt to attempt an assassination instead of using the backstab bonus.

That's right. That is a rule for a special situation (not a general entitlement for anyone at any time attacking from behind).

That Manzanaro has never played with anyone who played the game according to the handbooks seems to me in any case not sensibly a counter to, but rather a confirmation of, what you pointed out in your recent post.

Quote from: Phillip;886166That's right. That is a rule for a special situation (not a general entitlement for anyone at any time attacking from behind).

That Manzanaro has never played with anyone who played the game according to the handbooks seems to me in any case not sensibly a counter to, but rather a confirmation of, what you pointed out in your recent post.

Are you really trying to lay a burn on me based on your knowledge of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1970s ed. ? Ha ha ha!

EDIT: Also not a non sequitur. It was the original minor point of discussion that led to this whole absurd tangent.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886155Websters on simulation: something that is made to look, feel, or behave like something else especially so that it can be studied or used to train people.

Nowhere does it say that the simulation must be defined by a specific set of rules or a model, though rules of an RPG can also aid simulation, or a model can be created for the sake of simulation. It also doesn't say how time must elapse, either. In fact, there is no prohibition at all against the person running the simulation from interfering with the rules or model, especially if he sees them veer off from how the thing being simulated ought to "look, feel, or behave like." And no prohibition against skipping ahead in time.

Here's the part of Webster's definition that is appropriate to this discussion:

the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another

If you are allowing interference meta to the simulation it is pretty clearly a flawed representation. Which is fine. It is of course going to be flawed. Nonetheless we can still identify processes and mechanics of simulation, and refer to things as being outcomes of simulative mechanics. Just as we can identify things authorially inserted into the system that were NOT results of simulative mechanics.

An accurate simulation runs by itself. By "entering" into it we turn it into a game.

The more general definition of "simulation" that you used is pretty clearly useless to us in this discussion.

EDIT: So why is narrative separate from simulation?.Because there IS NO SUCH THING as simulated narrative, tone, drama, and etc. You either have these things or you dont. You make use of them or you don't.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886170Here's the part of Webster's definition that is appropriate to this discussion:

Not really an appropriate definition at all. It's applicable to mechanical systems. Not human systems. To the extent that I wish to simulate a world of willed beings, it's a human system I'm interested in simulating. Not an industrial process.

QuoteIf you are allowing interference meta to the simulation it is pretty clearly a flawed representation.

What is this "meta" of which you speak? If I'm trying to simulate the sound of rain with eggs in a frying pan, that works fine until the eggs burn. Then it's not so great. If I use that same set-up only I periodically remove the cooked egg and add a fresh one to the pan, it's a much better simulation. My interference part of the simulation, not meta to it. The only thing it's meta to is frying a fucking egg in a pan.

QuoteNonetheless we can still identify processes and mechanics of simulation, and refer to things as being outcomes of simulative mechanics. Just as we can identify things authorially inserted into the system that were NOT results of simulative mechanics.

Nah. This is the part where you reject Webster and insert your own definition. You're so hell-bent on drawing this distinction between simulating and authoring, you're perverting the definition of the words. The fictional world I am simulating has an NPC sage that's written a history of the world. Is this written history a simulated outcome? Or have I authored it?

It's simulated in the sense that I have this black-box that effectively simulates this fictional world, and one of its denizens produced this history. It's authored in the sense that I actually had to sit down and write this history using the narrative voice of a fictional character. There is a lot of overlap between authoring and simulation.

QuoteThe more general definition of "simulation" that you used is pretty clearly useless to us in this discussion.

Useless how?

How does your definition handle explicit rules that allow you to add, subtract, or alter rules? How would it handle a fantasy economy, given there are no models that can accurately simulate the real economy, and indeed it's conceptually impossible?

See, if you're holding up a standard for simulation that isn't realistically achievable, I'd say you're using a useless definition. You've given no reasons why you think my definition is "clearly useless" to this discussion. Except, perhaps, it facilitates the clarity of thought to shoot down a lot of your ideas.

Is it time to argue about the definition of semantic yet?
:popcorn:

Quote from: Bren;886238Is it time to argue about the definition of semantic yet?
:popcorn:

Yeah, isn't it fucking ridiculous how, as much as I have been very specific about what I am talking about and going so far as to support it with dictionary definitions, we still have people trying to tell me I am using words wrong?

Oh wait, you are one of those people with absolutely no interest in the concept of the thread and who just wants to argue. My bad.

Let's look this over.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886197Not really an appropriate definition at all. It's applicable to mechanical systems. Not human systems. To the extent that I wish to simulate a world of willed beings, it's a human system I'm interested in simulating. Not an industrial process.

Again you fail in just basic understanding. A simulation does not have to be literally mechanical. Nothing in the definition I quoted implies it does. Do you think 'game mechanics' means that games are literal machines? the bit about industrial process between the < > signs? That was an example of usage.

QuoteWhat is this "meta" of which you speak? If I'm trying to simulate the sound of rain with eggs in a frying pan, that works fine until the eggs burn. Then it's not so great. If I use that same set-up only I periodically remove the cooked egg and add a fresh one to the pan, it's a much better simulation. My interference part of the simulation, not meta to it. The only thing it's meta to is frying a fucking egg in a pan.

"Meta" means "beyond, or outside of" when I talk about things meta to the simulation I am talking about rules that affect the sim without being part of the actual rules of simulation.

God breaking the physical laws of the universe? That would be meta. he would be overriding our physical laws from an operating point outside of them.

A player interfering with the rules of simulation is meta to the rules of simulation. For, example, a GM fudging dice is altering the results of simulation for what that GM wants to happen within the emerging narrative of play. Put more simply, a GM fudging the dice is not running a simulation, he is telling a story.

QuoteNah. This is the part where you reject Webster and insert your own definition. You're so hell-bent on drawing this distinction between simulating and authoring, you're perverting the definition of the words. The fictional world I am simulating has an NPC sage that's written a history of the world. Is this written history a simulated outcome? Or have I authored it?

You wrote it yet you are asking me whether it was simulated?? What do you see yourself as simulating? Being an imaginary character that you made up? That's authorship all the way, no simulation involved, other than to the extent that you may have authored an account of events partially produced by mechanics of simulation.

QuoteUseless how?

\

Well, in the context of this thread, it is useless because if you stick to that definition you will not be able to understand me at all and will only be able to argue that I must use the same particular definition of a word that you have in mind, which would be fucking stupid because that is not how words work. So your entire contribution to this thread would miss the point and just allow you to vent hostility without any beneficial effect to anyone.

Wouldn't that be horrible?

But if you find your preferred definition useful in some way? Go forth and make use of it! Don't let me hold you back.

QuoteHow does your definition handle explicit rules that allow you to add, subtract, or alter rules?

Rules of simulation aren't set in stone. They can be changed, and such change is pretty obviously (I would think) another example of something meta to the simulation. Like, if you decided to convert your D&D campaign to Savage Worlds, it isn't like all the characters would suddenly feel weird. They would not notice. Unless someone narrated that they noticed. Or maybe you think there is a skill that should cover this kind of thing? Like, if a player suspects the GM is fudging he can ask for his PC to make a roll to notice? Ridiculous right? Right. Because PCs cannot notice things that are meta to the simulation. If you are having a hard time figuring out what I mean by "meta" use that sentence as a simple yardstick.

QuoteHow would it handle a fantasy economy, given there are no models that can accurately simulate the real economy, and indeed it's conceptually impossible?

It probably wouldn't. Or if it did it could do so in many many different ways. A system operating under rules of simulation by no means entails that those rules are complete or accurate. They couldn't possibly be either, in relation to the thing that they model. But we accept them as accurate to the degree that they exist and that we are really using them as rules of simulation.

QuoteSee, if you're holding up a standard for simulation that isn't realistically achievable, I'd say you're using a useless definition.

I'm not. There are all kinds of rules that I absolutely accept as rules of simulation, and if I refer to those rules as a GM I will always accept the results of those rules. I just recognize as nonsense the idea that the entire "paracosm" of the gameworld is entirely proceeding by rules of simulation. Just ridiculous. Though I certainly endorse GMs operating under tenets of simulation even when the rules don't cover a particular situation or subject; what this means is that even if we are unable to refer to a rule for a situation we can be guided by what we think would happen, rather than what we would like to happen or some other criteria.

Manzanaro, I'm going to say it officially: you're wasting your time debating semantics:).
See, everyone has a particular pet peeve. Bren is generally a very interesting person to debate with...but not in this thread. CRK is usually rather interesting as well...just not when the topic includes "narrative anything". Though he's still interesting to read, just not in the sense of "useful".

So, with that said, I'm going to stick to the thread's topic.

Quote from: Manzanaro;885956Well, let's look at some things that a GM might want to accomplish.
(Techniques for doing these things effectively are the intended focus for this thread.)

A GM may want to:

:create characters that seem real and use words to convey the personalities, actions, and dialogue of these characters to other people.

My technique: read books, fiction and non-fiction (accent on the latter). Talk with people with different backgrounds about their lives.
Borrow traits from the characters. Check with the non-fiction books what other traits a particular NPC is likely to have in addition to the above.
Variant technique: identify what common traits people doing a given job are likely to have. Do you best to show them.
Sometimes, randomly, throw in someone who doesn't fit the above. Because those people exist as well.
Don't hesitate to call for a "read intentions" roll. Sometimes, people do "broadcast", that's what "cold reading" uses...and some people make a living out of cold reading. Tell them that.

Remember that sometimes, people will interact with you, and that doesn't require any decisions. You go somewhere, a cop asks for your documents, they're in order, you show them. But not having the cop there might be weird...so add this, too.

Quote:use description of places and events to establish a particular tone.

Remember that groups of people with common traits impact the places where they hang, too. Tell that, too.
Use in conjunction with the previous technique.

The following example isn't among my best, but you get what...what I can find quickly.

Spoiler

The teahouse is surprisingly clean when you go inside. The people that are drinking tea there, sitting cross-legged near low tables with only the teapots - are only clean in the physical sense.
Klarius can almost smell the "stink" of being in The Life from some of them. And the heads that turn, look him over, and size him up before nodding politely tell him he has been judged, and found fitting for the place.

Maybe the second story is where the waitresses are earning a second wage. Whatever the case, there are more than a few people here.
On one table, a big tattooed Imperial is munching biscuits from the barbarian Eisengard - filling, if lacking in spices - in addition to his tea. He's talking with a petite woman who seems to have Tienlungian blood, and trying to look up her dress.
They seem to be talking business, though, as her face is calm. His face shows mostly that he hasn't shaved.
A huge, heavy iron-shod staff is sitting next to the table, almost as a line drawn across to warn everyone else from approaching the two.

On another table, three man are drinking tea, and conversing in low voices. They all sized Klarius up when he entered, then politely returned to their tea and conversations. All kinds of daggers are sticking out of their belts.

On the third table that's occupied in the early morning, a richly dressed man is leaning. He's talking in a low voice to a man in simple clothes, while drinking his tea.

There's no teacup in front of the simply dressed man. As the waitress comes to re-fill the only cup on the table, she leans low - lower than necessary perhaps, and she doesn't even offer tea to the other man.

Neither of the two acknowledge your presence, but the hulking brute of a man, sitting behind the small rich guy, does. His face is scarred, and his hands are never too far away from the sabre's handle.

There are four more free tables, which have teapots with boiling water on them. There's also two tables that don't have such things. Those are the tables closest to the three guys.

Quote:describe action in a way that is clear and compelling.

Short sentences, emotionally-charged words. Remember, elaborate martial arts are harder to describe than "brawling" methods...unless you just decribe the results.
Hint: read REH's descriptions of battles.

Quote:set up situations in a way that is compelling and promotes investment.

A compelling situation has more than one possibility, and more than one threats. If the possibilities (or avoiding both threats) are mutually exclusive, though... well, that's grounds for some introspection.
Or the PCs might make the choice immediately, but that also tells you a lot about them as persons - just in less words.

Quote:convey a sense of drama, comedy, tragedy, or other particular narrative qualities.

That's about the words you use, more than anything (and the tone of your voice). A single movement of a brow might change the tone entirely, in the right situation.
Comedy runs best on exaggeration. Tragedy...might as well, as the Iliad shows - but small signs of emotional turmoil, taken together, are just as effective, if not more.
As a player, you can contribute by either joking when the GM's joking, or by giving your answers in a deadpan voice, when your character is trying to contain himself from exploding and doing dramatic action. Dramatic action is best reserved for drama, BTW. Grand gestures in comedy are best kept for actions that somehow fail or waste resources and opportunities.
Examples: the guy that always wanted to show the finger to his boss, but didn't want to get fired, upon getting fired...shows him the fourth finger out of fury.
Achilles, upon hearing the news about his friend's death, runs to momma for help - knowing this will be the death of him - and after she provides him with weapons, starts killing people. It makes sense for some people - let no hurt befall my friends; avenge them if I fail, whatever the cost. And, since after killing Hector, Achilles is destined to die...he can as well enshrine his glory of a man-slayer in eternity, carving his tale in history with the bloodied letters his spear leaves on the bodies of slain Troyans.
Makes sense for a guy who believes he's going to die? Of course it does.

Quote:create and describe settings that are vivid and clear to the minds of others.

Understand the setting you're using. Make the setting react to the actions of the PCs.

Quote:foster a feeling of immersion in imagined events and settings.

Use things that the characters care about.
Other than that, you can't. You can only avoid doing things that are going to disrupt said immersion.

QuoteJust a few things off the top of my head that would be familiar to anyone who crafted narrative, and that I can think of no other way to describe except as "narrative concerns".


If anyone has a better name for this stuff than "narrative" feel free to propose it.

How about "Idon'tcarewhatyoucallit"?

QuoteAgain, while it is perfectly legitimate not to care about how the events of an RPG function on a narrative level, if you DON'T care about these things, than this thread probably won't interest you much... So why post? Why the rage and frantic arguments against the very idea of an RPG having narrative qualities?

Again wasting time, you are, young padawan /Yoda.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886259Yeah, isn't it fucking ridiculous how, as much as I have been very specific about what I am talking about and going so far as to support it with dictionary definitions, we still have people trying to tell me I am using words wrong?

No it isn't fucking ridiculous, because you are using the wrong words.

What is fucking ridiculous is you, repeatedly choosing the wrong words and then spending 95% of your time in this thread vehemently defending your choice of words instead of actually talking about anything other than semantics. And then crying about how no one wants to talk about anything except semantics.

Pot meet kettle.

Quote from: AsenRG;886292Manzanaro, I'm going to say it officially: you're wasting your time debating semantics:).

Maybe he'll hear you.

Until then I'll pop some more corn.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

Quote from: Manzanaro;886259Yeah, isn't it fucking ridiculous how, as much as I have been very specific about what I am talking about and going so far as to support it with dictionary definitions, we still have people trying to tell me I am using words wrong?

Welcome to TheEquivocatingSite.com.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886264Again you fail in just basic understanding. A simulation does not have to be literally mechanical. Nothing in the definition I quoted implies it does. Do you think 'game mechanics' means that games are literal machines? the bit about industrial process between the < > signs? That was an example of usage.

Um. It's clearly you who are the one that is failing in basic understanding. I did not use the word machine. I said mechanical, as in "not having or showing thought or spontaneity." You've been terming everything else as meta. But my game world (and I imagine most GMs) includes denizens who do show thought and spontaneity. So your definition is inappropriate.

Quote"Meta" means "beyond, or outside of" when I talk about things meta to the simulation I am talking about rules that affect the sim without being part of the actual rules of simulation.

Who said anything about "rules of simulation"? I was talking about simulation. Period. No qualifiers.

QuoteGod breaking the physical laws of the universe? That would be meta. he would be overriding our physical laws from an operating point outside of them.

Which is the exact opposite of what I was talking about.

QuoteA player interfering with the rules of simulation is meta to the rules of simulation.

Meta to the "rules." Not necessarily meta to the simulation. The point of simulation in the context of RPGs is it accurately resembles the fictional world. Because the fictional world is a human system, it is necessarily intractable. Any "model" or set of "rules" are necessarily imperfect. Rules, while at times helpful, cause a divergence from the ideal simulation if followed absolutely faithfully. Fortunately, RPGs are written to be played by humans, not machines, and so we have the opportunity--and to the degree which we care about the accuracy of the simulation, we have the duty--to tweak when necessary.

QuoteFor, example, a GM fudging dice is altering the results of simulation for what that GM wants to happen within the emerging narrative of play. Put more simply, a GM fudging the dice is not running a simulation, he is telling a story.

Non-sequitur. Just because some GMs fudge dice to the detriment of simulation for the sake of what what he wants to happen does not preclude the possibility of the GM fudging dice in instances where the rules do not accurately simulate how things work in the game world. I have been talking about nothing but the latter.

QuoteYou wrote it yet you are asking me whether it was simulated?? What do you see yourself as simulating? Being an imaginary character that you made up? That's authorship all the way, no simulation involved, other than to the extent that you may have authored an account of events partially produced by mechanics of simulation.

It's time you tap out. You've just stated in no uncertain terms that role play--that is, making choices for a character based on that character's beliefs, perception, and preference--is not part of simulation. How can you continue to pretend your definition of "simulation" has any relevance to role playing games?

QuoteWell, in the context of this thread, it is useless because if you stick to that definition you will not be able to understand me

No. It doesn't keep me from understanding you. I understand you perfectly fine. And even if I didn't understand you, that is no way precludes participating in other parts of the thread.

Quoteat all and will only be able to argue that I must use the same particular definition of a word that you have in mind, which would be fucking stupid because that is not how words work.

Your argument is fucking stupid because arguing that your definition of simulation is myopic was not my first post in this thread. Clearly there are other things I can do.

QuoteIt probably wouldn't. Or if it did it could do so in many many different ways. A system operating under rules of simulation by no means entails that those rules are complete or accurate. They couldn't possibly be either, in relation to the thing that they model. But we accept them as accurate to the degree that they exist and that we are really using them as rules of simulation.

Ah, the great neo-classical blunder. We know it's not accurate, but the model is close enough, therefore the results should be close enough as well and should be assumed true, or at least the closest to the truth we could ever produce given our limited knowledge. Only it turns out reality doesn't work that way.

We do NOT accept the rules as accurate. YOU accept the rules as accurate. Which I pointed out upthread is an absurd position to take since missing one tiny footnote can radically alter how you think the world being simulated actually works.

QuoteI just recognize as nonsense the idea that the entire "paracosm" of the gameworld is entirely proceeding by rules of simulation. Just ridiculous.

Extracting the meaning from this statement, in context of what you stated earlier about my example of a sage writing a history of the world, and your position seems to jive nicely with the wikipedia's description of the GNS model. Which basically states that simulating the workings of the physical world is considered simulationist. Simulating human action however (taking into account character goals, motives, etc..) is somehow considered narrativist.

Now that may be all well and good if you want to invest yourself in a goofy and defunct theory. But if you actually want to use the word "simulation" in the plain English sense, a simulation of a game world that includes willed inhabitants encompasses both simulating the natural physical laws as well as the laws of human action.

Quote from: Bren;886327No it isn't fucking ridiculous, because you are using the wrong words.

I'm pretty sure when he said it's fucking ridiculous, he chose the exact words about what he feels. Call it a hunch:)!

QuoteMaybe he'll hear you.

Until then I'll pop some more corn.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

Oh, sure, and maybe he won't!
Either way, I can't do much more than I did already. Well, maybe start work on that Asen's Guide to GMing I've been meaning to create...

In the meantime, I'll join in the popcorn party!
:popcorn:

Quote from: AsenRG;886346I'm pretty sure when he said it's fucking ridiculous, he chose the exact words about what he feels. Call it a hunch:)!

It may be the case that "fucking ridiculous" is exactly what he feels at this point in time. But "I feel fucking ridiculous" isn't what he said nor is it a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.

Pardon me while I melt some more butter.

Quote from: Bren;886352It may be the case that "fucking ridiculous" is exactly what he feels at this point in time. But "I feel fucking ridiculous" isn't what he said nor is it a reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.

Pardon me while I melt some more butter.

I don't know, man. I'm not following the discussion between you two:).

Go melt the butter, I've bought my popcorn already prepared and only need to warm it up;)!

I disagree with the premise of the OP that simulationist rules can ever be seperated from narrative rules in the way suggested.  You don't need a special mechanic for 'creating dramatic tension' if the scenarios are set up in such a way that a lot is actually riding on old-fashioned to-hit rolls and such.
     It's been my experience that dramatic tension and current 'narrative' mechanics are actually at odds more often than not.  I'm a GM 75% of the time, but when I do play, nothing kills the dramatic tension any more than knowing the rules (or the GM, outside of the rules) has a web of safety nets to keep anything bad from happening to a player's character without their consent.  The first time I run out of hit points and discover that a new system is doing the whole "Make an easily-passable roll every combat round, and if you pass you are totally fine, if you fail you move one small increment closer to death and roll the same easy task again next round" or "Spend a Protagonist Point to recover" and I start to feel like I'm a spectator listening to the GM tell me a story, or that I'm a kid playing lets pretend.