Quote from: Saurondor;886501Once 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.

This isn't true. The Sims is a simulation in which character behavior is not authored, but it really is a simulation (other than for the player controlled characters).

As far as tabletop RPGs go there are shitloads of things that are not authored. Did I roll up my character? Than that was not authored. Did I name him and choose his class? Than those things were authored. A classic tabletop RPG is a mix of simulated and authored elements, and I don't find it super hard to discern between the two.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886503If 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.

But did you say a while back that

QuoteEven in the post you are responding to I make it very clear that no rules of simulation are complete and that no RPG is going to advance entirely upon the rules of simulation.

So it is possible to have a set of simulation rules A, add a rule or two to A and create B and still have B be a simulation. Right? For example if in a given situation the rule in A yields an unrealistic result it can be overridden to create a more realistic outcome.

Quote from: Bren;886506The 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.

Let's take a look at this as this is closer to my original intent of discussion than a lot of this recent stuff has been.

Let's say we are running a D&D combat between 2 guys, a PC and an NPC.

The results of the simulation are going to be very dry. You hit him for 8. He misses. Etc.

There may be some sense of suspense generated purely by this mechanical output, as in "Will I win the fight?"

But I think we can heighten this sense of drama by narratively "dressing up" the combat output. "His sword slams down and you feel a shock down your arm as you intercept the blow. Take 5 HP."

But that is not all we are limited to doing. We can describe and narrate the combat for all kinds of effects. We can try to make it feel more immersive. We can use words to play up certain qualities of the opponent. We can insert dialogue into the combat.

All of these are things we can do to enhance the narrative qualities of the simulated combat, without overriding the rules of simulation in any way.

Quote from: Saurondor;886509But did you say a while back that

So it is possible to have a set of simulation rules A, add a rule or two to A and create B and still have B be a simulation. Right? For example if in a given situation the rule in A yields an unrealistic result it can be overridden to create a more realistic outcome.

This isn't something I can really respond to outside of specific examples. Personally, as a player, I would not want the GM constantly altering the rules based on his idea of realism, especially since "realism" is a nebulous concept to begin with. If the rules of an RPG are giving results that just are completely implausible than yeah, that isn't good. But can you give me an example of that?

I mean, to my mind, one of the key uses for narration is in making simulated results seem plausible, despite the fact that the actual process of simulation is going to be inherently imperfect.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886500Sure, I would call that operating under simulationist tenets while not necessarily actually using mechanics of simulation.

The "mechanics of the simulation" include the choices of the characters in the simulation. That is a common component included in many simulations; I listed several examples. You seem to think these human decisions are not part of the simulation when they are, in fact, a key component of the simulation.

Solo computer simulations, since they have no other human player will have some sort of, so-called, AI that seeks to simulate human decision making. When playing an RPG we have actual other humans at the table who can directly perform the function of simulating a human actor* or actors rather than relegating decision making to some blocks of code.

QuoteThis 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.

I have to again ask if you have an example of an actual author writing a story** using a randomly generated decision for the characters based on situation dependent weighted probability? Because that method (which I use in RPGs) seems totally unlike the way I write stories as an author and unlike the way any author I am familiar with describes their writing process. Which is why calling that "authoring" seems odd.


* To be clear, I mean actor as in "one who acts," not actor as in "an actor in a play, show, or movie."


** I wouldn't be surprised to learn someone, somewhere (probably in grad school) had given this a try as a novelty or stunt. I'd be somewhat surprised if anyone had successfully published multiple stories using this method

Quote from: Lunamancer;886495But 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.

Taking your word for it for a moment that you're representing his views accurately, I suppose I'd agree with you there UNLESS the extreme simulationist in question is also the designer of the rules in question, in which case he's probably apt to dogmatically adhere to what he considers his accurate simulationist mechanics- or revise them.

Can you give me a hypothetical?

QuoteFurther, 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.

I don't know what game you're talking about, but there are plenty of games, especially these days, in which he'd be right though. A gun does 1d6 hit points, typical character has 10 hit points, the designers were lazy (or thought GM's would be smart) and didn't explicitly put in a coup de grace rule, and there you go.  If you did find yourself stuck in such a game, the question of 'what the simulationist would do' comes down to 'what is the simulationist simulating'? If it's 'real life', I suppose he'd have to break the rules in that instant to get his realistic result.  But there are plenty of genres he could be simulating in which gun in mouth -> trigger pull not resulting in instant death is ok.

QuoteMy 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."

Yeah, if the simulationist is trying to simulate 'realism', then that's probably what he would do.  But it would still be a compromise, and not pure 'simulation'.  The simulationist would *prefer* it if the mechanics just took care of this for him. That's what a simulation is- an artificial system of rules or guidelines or whatever that, when initiated, depict a thing.   I don't think theater is 'simulationist', even if it's an extremely accurate portrayl of a thing that happened. So to that extent I agree with him- a simulationist would want his results realistic, but would want those realistic results determined by a system, not by his direct fiat.   So bad rules put a simulationist in a dilemma with no escape that doesn't involve some sacrifice of what it means to simulate.  But, I *expect* most simulationists would choose the horn of the dillemma that preserves the realism of his game, over getting an implausible, realism-destroying result because the rules demand it.  

EDIT: In fact, their correction would probably take the place of a new rule intended to be a part of the simulationist system, not a one-time fiat.

Quote from: Bren;886496Discussing 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.

Absolutely. But then at the end of the day these decisions generally only affect 6 people sitting around a table, so consensus across the industry is neither required nor desirable.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886511This isn't something I can really respond to outside of specific examples. Personally, as a player, I would not want the GM constantly altering the rules based on his idea of realism, especially since "realism" is a nebulous concept to begin with. If the rules of an RPG are giving results that just are completely implausible than yeah, that isn't good. But can you give me an example of that?

Oh sure. I always refer to the candelabra dilema, particularly with D&D examples. My character wants to run across the hall, jump on a table and swing across the room hanging from the candelabra. After applying the "simulation" rules my character moves 18 feet and is short 2 feet from the candelabra. Action ends there and forward momentum counts for nothing. I'm stuck mid point right there! I can't bend the rule a little? Specially the one that makes everyone in the world run at the same pace. What if my initial position had a measuring error? I could very well have been 3 feet closer to the candelabra.

Another is the initiative dilema. My party is in a negotiation with a group of NPC. We're talking freely, player saying what they want, negotiation goes on in the form of a free conversation between the GM and the players. Then negotiations go south and combat erupts. All of a sudden the players who were talking freely just moments ago have now to take turns. "Oh! Can't speak now, your third down the initiative. Wait your turn." Now apparently no rules are applied during the conversation part and rules are applied in the combat part. Are we going in and out of simulation? Is the world and setting my characters are living in only a simulation when they're fighting? Because that's the only part I'm seeing rules applied and you said it's impossible to have a simulation without rules.

Quote from: Bren;886513The "mechanics of the simulation" include the choices of the characters in the simulation. That is a common component included in many simulations; I listed several examples. You seem to think these human decisions are not part of the simulation when they are, in fact, a key component of the simulation.

No. A player may "step into" a simulation by proxy, but what the player chooses to do is not governed by the rules of simulation. Again player choice is not simulated. it is real choice. What is simulated is the outcome of that choice as if it were the choice of the proxy element and the response of the simulated environment. This may seem like a pedantic distinction but it is key to what I am talking about.

QuoteI have to again ask if you have an example of an actual author writing a story** using a randomly generated decision for the characters based on situation dependent weighted probability? Because that method (which I use in RPGs) seems totally unlike the way I write stories as an author and unlike the way any author I am familiar with describes their writing process. Which is why calling that "authoring" seems odd.

It's something I've used myself in writing actually. I am not privy to the authorial processes of any widely published authors. But is how common it is really an issue? What does that matter?

Quote from: Saurondor;886517Oh sure. I always refer to the candelabra dilema, particularly with D&D examples. My character wants to run across the hall, jump on a table and swing across the room hanging from the candelabra. After applying the "simulation" rules my character moves 18 feet and is short 2 feet from the candelabra. Action ends there and forward momentum counts for nothing. I'm stuck mid point right there! I can't bend the rule a little? Specially the one that makes everyone in the world run at the same pace. What if my initial position had a measuring error? I could very well have been 3 feet closer to the candelabra.

Sorry, but I am not entirely clear on what you are asking me here... Certainly turn based movement and combat are not how the real world work, but short of a complex system of tracking simultaneous movement (like we see in many video games) we tend to accept these conventions in RPGs and I think as we envision the scene we tend to sort of mentally edit away the idiosyncrasies resulting from the turn based model. Or we use conflict resolution instead of task based, but that is another can of worms.

QuoteAnother is the initiative dilema. My party is in a negotiation with a group of NPC. We're talking freely, player saying what they want, negotiation goes on in the form of a free conversation between the GM and the players. Then negotiations go south and combat erupts. All of a sudden the players who were talking freely just moments ago have now to take turns. "Oh! Can't speak now, your third down the initiative. Wait your turn." Now apparently no rules are applied during the conversation part and rules are applied in the combat part. Are we going in and out of simulation? Is the world and setting my characters are living in only a simulation when they're fighting? Because that's the only part I'm seeing rules applied and you said it's impossible to have a simulation without rules.

The dialogue is not a simulation, no. I don't think I have said anything about not allowing simulated content and narrated content to proceed in tandem...

Quote from: Manzanaro;886518What is simulated is the outcome of that choice and the response of the simulated environment.

What if the outcome of a choice can't be simulated because there is no rule to handle such a choice?

Quote from: Saurondor;886520What if the outcome of a choice can't be simulated because there is no rule to handle such a choice?

In a computer simulation such input probably wouldn't be allowed in the first place. In the context of an RPG we may simply narrate the outcome or we may opt to add an impromptu rule of simulation.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886519Sorry, but I am not entirely clear on what you are asking me here... Certainly turn based movement and combat are not how the real world work, but short of a complex system of tracking simultaneous movement (like we see in many video games) we tend to accept these conventions in RPGs and I think as we envision the scene we tend to sort of mentally edit away the idiosyncrasies resulting from the turn based model. Or we use conflict resolution instead of task based, but that is another can of worms.

Actually it would be quite easy to create a simple system for simultaneous movement unlike ones in video games. You see, video game use turn based movement too. It's just that the CPU is so fast at the round robin you never quite notice. Even with multiple cores it's impossible to handle everything that is moving at the same time.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886519The dialogue is not a simulation, no. I don't think I have said anything about not allowing simulated content and narrated content to proceed in tandem...

What about simulated and narrated content proceeding concurrently?

Quote from: Saurondor;886522Actually it would be quite easy to create a simple system for simultaneous movement unlike ones in video games. You see, video game use turn based movement too. It's just that the CPU is so fast at the round robin you never quite notice. Even with multiple cores it's impossible to handle everything that is moving at the same time.

Okay... Not sure what to say to this again. Am I missing something?

QuoteWhat about simulated and narrated content proceeding concurrently?

Sounds okay to me. I guess it is possible to be a stickler for this and try to figure out exactly what someone could say within a timed combat round, but I don't think that even the most ardent proponents of simulation tend to try and take things to that level.

Quote from: Manzanaro;886521In a computer simulation such input probably wouldn't be allowed in the first place. In the context of an RPG we may simply narrate the outcome or we may opt to add an impromptu rule of simulation.

Well that's the beauty of RPGs! We are not constrained by the program's constraints as is the case with a video game.

Now your previous posts seem to go against impromptu rules unless the GM takes a break to get a PhD in whatever is going on in the game at the time so it's "simulationist" enough. Which way is it?