Quote from: Agkistro;886484It seems like there must be some way to actually discuss what you mean without fixating on who's using the proper semantics.

Definitions are not semantics. I swear the accusing one of "arguing semantics" ought to be on the list of logical fallacies.

Manzanaro is just plain wrong. Even Manzanaro thinks Manzanaro is just plain wrong. That's why he keeps sneaking in "rules of simulation"--because he clearly realizes rules of simulation is something different from simulation. He just refuses to admit it.

And he refuses to admit it because he's trying to pigeon hole simulation into something it is not, just so he can draw a neat little line between simulation and narration. Because without that line, once you embrace that the two have enormous natural overlap, it kind of takes the wind out of his sails.

Not the conversation topic, mind you. It can certainly be helpful to talk about where the two overlap. But Manzanaro seems to think it takes work or some kind of think tank to hash out how to marry the two.

Please note I am replying to this without having read the battle between you all other than the last couple posts, and without any intention on taking a side. I'm the new guy and couldn't care less about any of you. I like games.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886450Condolences on this being your first post. I agree with you that the premise may be a little shaky. I think you can talk about simulation and narrative and separate concepts. But they are definitely not mutually exclusive things to begin with.

Yeah, and player character action is one of the places where they meet.  A player is going to want to do what they want, what is appropriate for their character, and what will bring them success. Most players are going to want the outcome to be governed by a combination of fair, realistic rules and a GM attentive to genre tropes.

QuoteThey frequently blend naturally, and trying to separate them only ever makes both for weaker simulation and weaker narrative.

I think simulation should inform the narrative, and narrative should inform when it's appropriate to allow the simulation mechanics to step in and determine outcomes.  So while I agree they blend, I think they can do that without narrative having any specific representation in the mechanics, other than your general 'GM has final say' rule that's in every game implicitly.

QuoteI don't think this is what's being discussed here at all. Though I tend to agree with you. Renowned director David Mamet would agree with this as well.

David Mamet is cool shit.

QuoteI often point out that virtually every game in the known universe sets the rules in opposition to the goal.

The goal wouldn't be much of a goal otherwise.  But also remember 'game' and 'simulation' are two separate elements to an rpg too, as long as we're using this lingo.  The purpose of your simulationist mechanics isn't entirely  to create a game a big-heads would define 'game'.

QuoteOnly in RPGs do we theorize that the rules of the game ought to be aligned with the goal.

And even then only in certain genres.  This sounds correct in fantasy RP, but I certainly wouldn't say the new Delta Green rules are aligned with the goal, unless it's a very abstract and vague goal like 'have a good time'.  The dice are very much analogous to your 11 big dudes in the football game, when they are rolled.

QuoteThat said, it does not surprise me in the least when you say that rules specifically crafted to create drama and tension consistently fail to do so.

The assumption seems to be that pointless, sudden death (or other sorts of utter failure) is the Worst Thing Ever in an RPG, and that the first narrative goal is to make sure that very bad things only happen when appropriate to the story.  Perhaps it's because I run mostly bleak horror settings, but this has always seemed false to me.  Suddenly, pointless death is very useful in driving home the points I am attempting to make in a typical storyline.

Which just goes to show that conversations like this really are dependent on genre.

QuoteThough it has to happen organically.

Things happening organically is a huge part of it, yes. Victory feels good precisely because it is not assured.  At least for me.

QuoteIt provides a reasonable explanation for strange or extreme events to maintain and facilitate the suspension of disbelief.

It does that. It can makes role-playing into a *game*.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886487Definitions are not semantics. I swear the accusing one of "arguing semantics" ought to be on the list of logical fallacies.

Manzanaro is just plain wrong. Even Manzanaro thinks Manzanaro is just plain wrong. That's why he keeps sneaking in "rules of simulation"--because he clearly realizes rules of simulation is something different from simulation. He just refuses to admit it.

And he refuses to admit it because he's trying to pigeon hole simulation into something it is not, just so he can draw a neat little line between simulation and narration. Because without that line, once you embrace that the two have enormous natural overlap, it kind of takes the wind out of his sails.

Not the conversation topic, mind you. It can certainly be helpful to talk about where the two overlap. But Manzanaro seems to think it takes work or some kind of think tank to hash out how to marry the two.

Your excess of bile seems to be leading you to make erroneous assumptions as to both my intent and my motives.

Certainly narration and simulation can and do overlap in the context of an RPG. If you think I don't believe this than you have not even understood the title of this thread.

And simulation proceeds by rules. If there are no rules for it, how in the living fuck can you call it a simulation?

Quote from: Lunamancer;886487Definitions are not semantics. I swear the accusing one of "arguing semantics" ought to be on the list of logical fallacies.

Manzanaro is just plain wrong.

I refuse to read this backlog and see which of you is right and wrong. I'm just saying that in general 'simulationist' vs. 'narrativist' are not rigorously defined enough to allow precise arguments over who is using it correctly. It's possible that one or both of you is using it so SUPER DUPER EXTREMELY wrong that you're not even within the vague boundaries those terms define, but again, I'm not going to read back and see if that's true.

Quote from: Agkistro;886484It seems like there must be some way to actually discuss what you mean without fixating on who's using the proper semantics.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

If the question is, how can I as the GM best describe things in an RPG?

Then the answer depends on what the GM is trying to do. Which is why what one means by simulation, narrative, and author matter.

If the GM's goal is to clearly and succinctly describe the people, places, things, and outcomes in an imaginary world in motion so that the player can most easily see the setting in their minds eye and make decisions as their character- you get one set of answers.

If the GM's goal is authorial - trying to evoke particular feelings and emotions in an audience, trying to foreshadow events, trying to engineer a dramatic confrontation for the players, you get a different set of answers.

Depicting an imaginary world in motion is what some of us mean by an RPG simulation. The authorial role - which would be better described as a world building role, typically happens outside of play and is often the subject not the object of simulation. The GM typically decides how many baronies there are in the Realm either before the session begans, after the session ends if the question came up in play and the answer was unknown, or when improvisation is required and feasible, in a short break in play during the session.

Quote from: Bren;886492If the GM's goal is to clearly and succinctly describe the people, places, things, and outcomes in an imaginary world in motion so that the player can most easily see the setting in their minds eye and make decisions as their character- you get one set of answers.

If the GM's goal is authorial - trying to evoke particular feelings and emotions in an audience, trying to foreshadow events, trying to engineer a dramatic confrontation for the players, you get a different set of answers.

I can't imagine running or playing in a game in which both are not happening.  I mean, maybe when I was 11 and "You see [monster]. Roll for initiative" was the plot line of all of my  'role-playing', but since then, everything I've been involved with has had elements of both- there are scenes the purpose of which are to efficiently dispense information and get it over with, and scenes the purpose of which are to evoke a mood, within the same game session.

Quote from: Agkistro;886491I refuse to read this backlog and see which of you is right and wrong. I'm just saying that in general 'simulationist' vs. 'narrativist' are not rigorously defined enough to allow precise arguments over who is using it correctly. It's possible that one or both of you is using it so SUPER DUPER EXTREMELY wrong that you're not even within the vague boundaries those terms define, but again, I'm not going to read back and see if that's true.

I reject GNS theory rigorously and entirely. I'm using the terms in the plain English sense of things. Manzanaro is denying anything with a human participant is a simulation and insisting simulations are defined by rules. I'm saying, no, there exist human systems in the world, like cultures or economies for example, which we sometimes do try to simulate to some extent in the game world.

We both agree that no set of rules or model you can possibly articulate will be 100% accurate.

But in his view, an extreme simulationist is one with almost dogmatic adherence to rules. Whereas my view is that an extreme simulationist is quick to abandon rules that don't accurately reflect the world being simulated.

And therein lies the reason he's wrong. My view is actually aimed at simulating the world. Whereas he merely claims to be simulating the world. What he's actually doing is simulating a set of arbitrary, dead rules.

Further, his view is problematic because if you go a few pages back where batman had a gun in his mouth, he insists under a hit-point style system batman with 80+ hit points has zero chance of being killed. To that, I pointed out an obscure footnote from the assassins table that says, no, even a non-assassin has a chance to insta-kill someone in that sort of compromising position.

His view, his "simulation" swings wildly depending on whether or not he's read, remembered, and accurately executes every last hidden footnote in the middle of a 200+ page tome.

My view does not swing radically. Even if the GM is unaware of the footnote in question, he can simply follow a thought process like, "Well, in this game world, even heroes are still mortal and can die, so I'm going to set aside the rules in this case and make a special ruling."

Mind you, Manzanaro specified this example as a "gotcha"--because he believes that the way the fictional world works is that batman is indeed mortal and indeed should be able to die from the single shot. His fucked up views, however, make him a slave to the rules and insist we have to blast through all 80 of batmans hit points before he dies.

I'm not operating in a vacuum. I'm shoving every assumption Manzanaro comes out with down his throat. He just refuses to admit he's wrong.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886486I also doubt your approach is exceedingly common, if you want to talk commonality for some reason, as I have never seen it suggested anywhere else by anyone. However, commonality is really neither here nor there.

As I said, "I try, to the best of my ability given my limited, time, intelligence, and resources, to select an action that makes the most sense for that character to select based on the current situation as that character understands it. If there is than one choice that makes a reasonable amount of sense, I will typically use a die roll with weighted probabilities to select among the various reasonable actions."

As is any abstraction or simulation, the result is necessarily imperfect. But the goal and outcome are quite different than when making decisions as an author.

Can you see that there is a difference?

Quote from: Agkistro;886488The assumption seems to be that pointless, sudden death (or other sorts of utter failure) is the Worst Thing Ever in an RPG, and that the first narrative goal is to make sure that very bad things only happen when appropriate to the story.  Perhaps it's because I run mostly bleak horror settings, but this has always seemed false to me.  Suddenly, pointless death is very useful in driving home the points I am attempting to make in a typical storyline.

Which just goes to show that conversations like this really are dependent on genre.

Discussing genre is one way of trying to understand what the participants want and what the GM has on offer. However I notice that discussions about genre seem to spawn nearly as many semantic and definitional arguments. Mystery, super hero comics, fantasy, or pulp fiction, for example, encompass a lot of different and incompatible kinds of stories.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886474Let me spell it out for you: As soon as a person directly controls an element of a simulation, that element is no longer simulated. (Although the results for a course of action involving that player controlled character may still be simulated, what the player controlled character chooses to say and attempt to do is very clearly no longer determined by the rules of simulation.)

Use this as applicable for any example you care to name.

So who was controlling the element before said person took control? It's either another player or the GM. All of whom are persons. That is of course unless you play with Ash and Bishop at your table.

Quote from: Saurondor;886497So who was controlling the element before said person took control? It's either another player or the GM. All of whom are persons. That is of course unless you play with Ash and Bishop at your table.

I have said consistently that an RPG is not going to be entirely a simulation.

Behavior of characters is generally speaking going to be an element authored by someone. How that behavior works out is what may end up being simulated.

Quote from: Bren;886496As I said, "I try, to the best of my ability given my limited, time, intelligence, and resources, to select an action that makes the most sense for that character to select based on the current situation as that character understands it. If there is than one choice that makes a reasonable amount of sense, I will typically use a die roll with weighted probabilities to select among the various reasonable actions."

As is any abstraction or simulation, the result is necessarily imperfect. But the goal and outcome are quite different than when making decisions as an author.

Can you see that there is a difference?

Sure, I would call that operating under simulationist tenets while not necessarily actually using mechanics of simulation. This is something we can do as authors in any narrative form, whether we actually do or not. But it is something that I find to be good practice.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886499I have said consistently that an RPG is not going to be entirely a simulation.

Behavior of characters is generally speaking going to be an element authored by someone. How that behavior works out is what may end up being simulated.

Once again, unless you're playing with a borg, everything is going to be authored by someone thus never truly a simulation according to your statement.

Quote from: Lunamancer;886495Mind you, Manzanaro specified this example as a "gotcha"--because he believes that the way the fictional world works is that batman is indeed mortal and indeed should be able to die from the single shot. His fucked up views, however, make him a slave to the rules and insist we have to blast through all 80 of batmans hit points before he dies.

I'm not operating in a vacuum. I'm shoving every assumption Manzanaro comes out with down his throat. He just refuses to admit he's wrong.

If you are overriding the rules of simulation to say what happens you are no longer simulating, you are authoring events. You may still be depicting but you are not simulating.

As far as 'shoving things down my throat'? Sounds like you could use some private time in the bathroom, bro.

Quote from: Saurondor;886497So who was controlling the element before said person took control? It's either another player or the GM. All of whom are persons.

They're controlled by a computer program. Let's not ask who wrote the program.

Quote from: Agkistro;886494I can't imagine running or playing in a game in which both are not happening.

The real world doesn't appear to run with any authorial intent. Meaning is found by individual people who exist in the world. An imaginary world can be approached in the same way. So events evoke horror, pathos, excitement, romance, and tension if the events (from the PoV of the players as their characters) are horrific, pathetic, exciting, romantic, or tense.

As a GM I can try and shape events and descriptions to evoke or push a feeling or I can just try to be clear and descriptive without adding a ton of emotional overtone and let events unfold and allow the players to feel what they feel. I find the former approach works best with one shots, short arcs, and narrow focused campaigns, while the latter works better for long duration and open-ended campaigns.

Which is why it is important to know what the GM is trying to accomplish.